http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/a-heartbreaking-drug-sentence-of-staggering-idiocy/274607/
QuoteA Heartbreaking Drug Sentence of Staggering Idiocy
A first-time offender, father to three, sold pain pills to a friend. His punishment: 25 years in prison. It's just the latest evidence that U.S. drug policy is madness.
John Horner, a 46-year-old fast-food restaurant worker, lost his eye in a 2000 accident and was prescribed painkillers. Years later, he met and befriended a guy who seemed to be in pain himself. His new friend asked if he could buy some of Horner's pain pills. Naturally, the friend was a police informant. Prosecutors in Central Florida say Horner was ultimately paid $1,800 for pills. "My public defender told me, 'They got you dead to rights,'" he said. "So I thought, 'OK, I guess there's no need taking this to trial.'" His story is recounted in a BBC News Service story about the problematic use of informants by U.S. law-enforcement agencies.
It's an important subject and the article tackles it well.
But let's focus here on the anecdote about Horner, because it gets at the utter madness of the War on Drugs. For the sake of argument, let's presume he's guilty of selling $1,800 of pain pills prescribed to him for an injury. Forget that he was arguably entrapped. Just look at the crime in isolation.
What sort of punishment should it carry?
You've got a 46-year-old employed father, with no criminal record, caught selling four bottles of prescription pain pills. "Under Florida law Horner now faced a minimum sentence of 25 years, if found guilty," the BBC reports.
Twenty-five years minimum!
It costs Florida roughly $19,000 to incarcerate an inmate for a year. So I ask you, dear reader, is keeping non-violent first-time drug offender John Horner locked behind bars in a jumpsuit really the best use of $475,000? For the same price, you could pay a year's tuition for 75 students at Florida State University. You could pay the salaries of seven West Palm Beach police officers for a year. Is it accurate to call a system that demands the 25-year prison term mad?
Well. Prosecutors offered to shave years off his sentence if he became an informant himself and successfully helped send five others to prison on 25 year terms. He tried. But "Horner failed to make cases against drug traffickers," says the BBC. "As a result, he was sentenced to the full 25 years in October last year and is now serving his sentence in Liberty Correctional Institution."
Naturally.
"He will be 72 by the time he is released."
Heh I love how this will cost the taxpayers thousands in lost taxes plus hundreds of thousands to keep a productive member of society behind bars. Oh and maybe his family will not need to go on government assistance!
People of Florida you lose! But then again you elected these moronic drug warriors to begin with.
I read an article about the Three Strikes law that I found interesting. That stuff seems just as silly as the extremely high mandatory sentences for first time (drug) felons.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-20130327
Boo hoo. Whiny crybaby knows it is verboten. Rot in jail hippie.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 12:30:22 PM
Boo hoo. Whiny crybaby knows it is verboten. Rot in jail hippie.
I only wish it would just be nutcases like you who would bear the fiscal burden for this garbage. Ah well.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2013, 11:51:14 AM
Heh I love how this will cost the taxpayers thousands in lost taxes plus hundreds of thousands to keep a productive member of society behind bars. Oh and maybe his family will not need to go on government assistance!
People of Florida you lose! But then again you elected these moronic drug warriors to begin with.
Everything is always dollars and cents with you weirdos.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 12:30:22 PM
Boo hoo. Whiny crybaby knows it is verboten. Rot in jail hippie.
+1 Got what he deserved.
You guys are nuts. He should have gotten probation at most.
Not crazy about that snitch chain letter idea either.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 03, 2013, 02:39:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 12:30:22 PM
Boo hoo. Whiny crybaby knows it is verboten. Rot in jail hippie.
+1 Got what he deserved.
Are you being serious or trolling? :unsure:
It's pretty severe, but shame on him for letting his guard down. Everyone knows drug offenses carry stiff penalties.
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2013, 02:48:06 PM
Everyone knows drug offenses carry stiff penalties.
I think the point is that they shouldn't.
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2013, 02:48:06 PM
It's pretty severe, but shame on him for letting his guard down. Everyone knows drug offenses carry stiff penalties.
Wow, just wow.
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 02:54:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2013, 02:48:06 PM
It's pretty severe, but shame on him for letting his guard down. Everyone knows drug offenses carry stiff penalties.
Wow, just wow.
:huh: It's not common knowledge?
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2013, 02:58:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 02:54:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2013, 02:48:06 PM
It's pretty severe, but shame on him for letting his guard down. Everyone knows drug offenses carry stiff penalties.
Wow, just wow.
:huh: It's not common knowledge?
First of all, I highly doubt it's common knowledge that you can serve a minimum of 25 years for selling some pills to a friend. Secondly, the lack of outrage over something that is so clearly a disproportionate punishment is very chilling. It's like you people lack conscience or something. :blink:
Lacking a conscience is considered a sign of strength among certain tribes.
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:00:44 PM
First of all, I highly doubt it's common knowledge that you can serve a minimum of 25 years for selling some pills to a friend. Secondly, the lack of outrage over something that is so clearly a disproportionate punishment is very chilling. It's like you people lack conscience or something. :blink:
Can't be bothered to feel outraged about half a million dead babies a year, why should this be different?
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:00:44 PM
First of all, I highly doubt it's common knowledge that you can serve a minimum of 25 years for selling some pills to a friend.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, then. And wtf difference does it make if it's a 'friend'. Ten bucks says he made a profit off the sales.
QuoteSecondly, the lack of outrage over something that is so clearly a disproportionate punishment is very chilling. It's like you people lack conscience or something. :blink:
I do think that is severe. I'm just not as emotional as you :P
Quote from: Maximus on April 03, 2013, 03:03:02 PM
Lacking a conscience is considered a sign of strength among certain tribes.
Yeah, especially the tribe of stupid internet faggots.
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2013, 03:11:04 PM
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, then. And wtf difference does it make if it's a 'friend'. Ten bucks says he made a profit off the sales.
Wow, the law, no matter how unjust, is always justified. Got it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2013, 03:11:04 PM
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, then. And wtf difference does it make if it's a 'friend'. Ten bucks says he made a profit off the sales.
Wow, the law, no matter how unjust, is always justified. Got it.
I did say the penalty was severe, didn't I? There's no pleasing you types.
What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system. Once people go to prison, they're considered subhuman, and the costs incurred by them don't count.
As is usually the case with all big issues, I'm sure race plays a factor here. Reigning in the prison-industrial complex is going to disproportionally benefit convicted black people, since they're the ones getting nailed the hardest, and I'm sure there are quite a few people who are happy to keep them locked away, and not really think about the sausage making that gets and keeps them there.
I would like to disassociate myself from DGuller in this thread please. :sleep:
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2013, 03:53:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2013, 03:11:04 PM
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, then. And wtf difference does it make if it's a 'friend'. Ten bucks says he made a profit off the sales.
Wow, the law, no matter how unjust, is always justified. Got it.
I did say the penalty was severe, didn't I? There's no pleasing you types.
Yeah, and then you went on to comment on how he got what he deserved. See a problem there?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 03:58:08 PM
Yeah, and then you went on to comment on how he got what he deserved. See a problem there?
Yeah, I guess I do see a problem there, Bub. 'Cuz I never said that :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2013, 04:04:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 03:58:08 PM
Yeah, and then you went on to comment on how he got what he deserved. See a problem there?
Yeah, I guess I do see a problem there, Bub. 'Cuz I never said that :contract:
Ok, explain to me what you meant when you said
"It's pretty severe, but shame on him for letting his guard down."
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:54:17 PM
What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system. Once people go to prison, they're considered subhuman, and the costs incurred by them don't count.
As is usually the case with all big issues, I'm sure race plays a factor here. Reigning in the prison-industrial complex is going to disproportionally benefit convicted black people, since they're the ones getting nailed the hardest, and I'm sure there are quite a few people who are happy to keep them locked away, and not really think about the sausage making that gets and keeps them there.
Probably has a lot more to do with the fact that a "law and order" agenda is an easy sound bit to sell during an election while the argument against things like mandatory sentencing is a bit more involved.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 04:09:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:54:17 PM
What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system. Once people go to prison, they're considered subhuman, and the costs incurred by them don't count.
As is usually the case with all big issues, I'm sure race plays a factor here. Reigning in the prison-industrial complex is going to disproportionally benefit convicted black people, since they're the ones getting nailed the hardest, and I'm sure there are quite a few people who are happy to keep them locked away, and not really think about the sausage making that gets and keeps them there.
Probably has a lot more to do with the fact that a "law and order" agenda is an easy sound bit to sell during an election while the argument against things like mandatory sentencing is a bit more involved.
But the reason it's easy to sell is that the audience is receptive to being sold. Why doesn't the same dynamic happen in other western democracies?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 04:07:48 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 03, 2013, 04:04:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 03:58:08 PM
Yeah, and then you went on to comment on how he got what he deserved. See a problem there?
Yeah, I guess I do see a problem there, Bub. 'Cuz I never said that :contract:
Ok, explain to me what you meant when you said
"It's pretty severe, but shame on him for letting his guard down."
I'm saying it's severe punishment, but I'm not crying myself to sleep over it.
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 04:13:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 04:09:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:54:17 PM
What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system. Once people go to prison, they're considered subhuman, and the costs incurred by them don't count.
As is usually the case with all big issues, I'm sure race plays a factor here. Reigning in the prison-industrial complex is going to disproportionally benefit convicted black people, since they're the ones getting nailed the hardest, and I'm sure there are quite a few people who are happy to keep them locked away, and not really think about the sausage making that gets and keeps them there.
Probably has a lot more to do with the fact that a "law and order" agenda is an easy sound bit to sell during an election while the argument against things like mandatory sentencing is a bit more involved.
But the reason it's easy to sell is that the audience is receptive to being sold. Why doesn't the same dynamic happen in other western democracies?
What makes you think it doesnt. The government in Canada has passed similar minimum mandatory sentencing laws and it has a disproportionate effect on native communities but that disproportionate effect has nothing to do with why the laws are an easy sell. It is because a law and order agenda is a more simplistic idea to sell to the voting public then dealing with more difficult societal problems.
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2013, 03:33:33 PM
Quote from: Maximus on April 03, 2013, 03:03:02 PM
Lacking a conscience is considered a sign of strength among certain tribes.
Yeah, especially the tribe of stupid internet faggots.
Wait, isn't that your tribe?
46 years old. It's a death sentence.
Why not, while on bail, or while dragooned as a drug warrior yourself, try to kill the cop who set you up, or, well, any cop? Indeed, why not try to kill anyone and everyone you see before they take you down? Even assuming rational actors, what is the deterrence value here?
I bet derspeiss would go out killing.
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 02:43:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 03, 2013, 02:39:16 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 12:30:22 PM
Boo hoo. Whiny crybaby knows it is verboten. Rot in jail hippie.
+1 Got what he deserved.
Are you being serious or trolling? :unsure:
Trolling. Why didnt he just give his friend the pills. I mean..come on dude.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 04:38:43 PM
46 years old. It's a death sentence.
Why not, while on bail, or while dragooned as a drug warrior yourself, try to kill the cop who set you up, or, well, any cop? Indeed, why not try to kill anyone and everyone you see before they take you down? Even assuming rational actors, what is the deterrence value here?
I bet derspeiss would go out killing.
I think I have to agree with Ide. -_-
Also, I'm glad I never sell pills that I have.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 03, 2013, 04:49:55 PM
Trolling. Why didnt he just give his friend the pills. I mean..come on dude.
It wouldn't surprise me if the "friend" insisted on paying. Wouldn't be the first such story I heard. It seems like when it comes to stings, there is no such thing as entrapment.
Anyway, ignoring all that, let's assume the guy completely willfully decided to sell some pills. Should there not be some sense of proportionality in the punishment? Just because you know you're committing a crime doesn't mean that you lose the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. That's the part that seems to be lost on many people here: even the scumbags deserve justice.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 04:38:43 PM
46 years old. It's a death sentence.
Why not, while on bail, or while dragooned as a drug warrior yourself, try to kill the cop who set you up, or, well, any cop? Indeed, why not try to kill anyone and everyone you see before they take you down? Even assuming rational actors, what is the deterrence value here?
I bet derspeiss would go out killing.
Presumably he'll be paroled after a decade or so, at which point he'll have hopefully picked up some tips on how to commit violent crime. Violent crime and incarceration is probably his best retirement option, given that he'll be starting his life from scratch in his late fifties.
I hope this means that Ide and garbon don 't go out on a killing rampage.
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 04:56:31 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 03, 2013, 04:49:55 PM
Trolling. Why didnt he just give his friend the pills. I mean..come on dude.
It wouldn't surprise me if the "friend" insisted on paying. Wouldn't be the first such story I heard. It seems like when it comes to stings, there is no such thing as entrapment.
Anyway, ignoring all that, let's assume the guy completely willfully decided to sell some pills. Should there not be some sense of proportionality in the punishment? Just because you know you're committing a crime doesn't mean that you lose the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. That's the part that seems to be lost on many people here: even the scumbags deserve justice.
:yes: to all of that.
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:54:17 PM
What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system.
No, what this case highlights is what happens when you remove the independence of the judiciary from criminal law and place it in the hands of the legislature.
Well, what do you expect when lawyers have made themselves a law unto themselves and set up a ridiculous system? People are disenfranchised and so they vote for stupid men who offer stupid solutions, like the mandatory minimum. Nobody trusts a judge, so it seems like a good idea to remove as much discretion from them as possible.
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2013, 04:57:42 PM
Presumably he'll be paroled after a decade or so, at which point he'll have hopefully picked up some tips on how to commit violent crime.
These mandatory minimum sentence structures in Florida follow the same track as life sentences: you do not gain time for good behavior, or qualify for parole. It's a mandatory sentencing structure. 25 years = 25 years.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2013, 01:22:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 12:30:22 PM
Boo hoo. Whiny crybaby knows it is verboten. Rot in jail hippie.
I only wish it would just be nutcases like you who would bear the fiscal burden for this garbage. Ah well.
Your butthurt...delicious.
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2013, 05:08:13 PM
Well, what do you expect when lawyers have made themselves a law unto themselves and set up a ridiculous system? People are disenfranchised and so they vote for stupid men who offer stupid solutions, like the mandatory minimum. Nobody trusts a judge, so it seems like a good idea to remove as much discretion from them as possible.
The other way around. What do you expect when a bunch of legislators without a proper appreciation for the law take away the discretion of legally trained people to deal with cases appropriately?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 05:17:40 PM
The other way around. What do you expect when a bunch of legislators without a proper appreciation for the law take away the discretion of legally trained people to deal with cases appropriately?
I dunno, man...by asking the defendant to snitch out 5 other defendants, sounds to me like the State's Attorney can't tell the difference between an Oxy overlord kingpin and an old man selling some surplus out of his Rx. Doesn't strike me as someone legally trained to deal with cases appropriately.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 03, 2013, 05:17:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2013, 05:08:13 PM
Well, what do you expect when lawyers have made themselves a law unto themselves and set up a ridiculous system? People are disenfranchised and so they vote for stupid men who offer stupid solutions, like the mandatory minimum. Nobody trusts a judge, so it seems like a good idea to remove as much discretion from them as possible.
The other way around. What do you expect when a bunch of legislators without a proper appreciation for the law take away the discretion of legally trained people to deal with cases appropriately?
That might work if all the legislators weren't filthy fucking lawyers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:54:17 PM
What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system.
No, what this case highlights is what happens when you remove the independence of the judiciary from criminal law and place it in the hands of the legislature.
Bingo.
Force the law into a state of ignorance about the facts, and idiotic results will follow.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 05:24:07 PM
I dunno, man...by asking the defendant to snitch out 5 other defendants, sounds to me like the State's Attorney can't tell the difference between an Oxy overlord kingpin and an old man selling some surplus out of his Rx. Doesn't strike me as someone legally trained to deal with cases appropriately.
Don't know how FLA law deals with this, but under some of these mandatory minimum schemes, one of few ways out is to be a cooperator. So the prosecutor may not be under the delusion that this guy is the Pablo Escobar of pain pills, rather he is trying to help get a reasonable result by pounding this square peg into the only round hole that appears available.
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2013, 05:08:13 PM
Well, what do you expect when lawyers have made themselves a law unto themselves and set up a ridiculous system? People are disenfranchised and so they vote for stupid men who offer stupid solutions, like the mandatory minimum. Nobody trusts a judge, so it seems like a good idea to remove as much discretion from them as possible.
That is why you are doomed to failure.
You still don't grasp that lawyers don't create foolishness, there are just force multipliers for the foolishness that the system and its actors foist upon them.
QuoteHere are the mandatory minimum prison sentences for trafficking offenses in the State of Florida:
Trafficking in Cannabis (Marijuana)
25 lbs. to 9,999 lbs.; or 300 to 1,999 cannabis plants, 3 years prison
2,000 lbs. to 9,999 lbs.; or 2,000 to 9,999 cannabis plants, 7 years prison
10,000 lbs. or more; or 10,000 or more cannabis plants, 15 years prison
Trafficking in Cocaine
28 grams or more, but less than 200 grams, 3 years prison
200 grams or more, but less than 400 grams, 7 years prison
400 grams or more, but less than 150 kilograms, 15 years prison
Trafficking in Hydrocodone (Vicodin)
4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams, 3 years prison
14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams, 15 years prison
28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, 25 years prison
Trafficking in LSD
1 gram or more, but less than 5 grams, 3 years prison
5 grams or more, but less than 7 grams, 7 years prison
7 grams or more, 15 years prison
Trafficking in MDMA (Ecstasy)
10 grams or more but less than 200 grams, 3 years prison
200 grams or more, but less than 400 grams, 7 years prison and a $100,000 fine
400 grams or more, 15 years prison
Trafficking in Oxycodone
4 grams or more, but less than 14 grams, 3 years prison
14 grams or more, but less than 28 grams, 15 years prison
28 grams or more, but less than 30 kilograms, 25 years prison
I wonder how prosecutors involved in such cases feel. Even if your discretion is limited, surely someone with a conscience must feel like shit when being forced to be an executioner of a barely guilty man. Then again, given how so often prosecutors resist the release of even wrongfully convicted people, maybe delusion and sociopathy is part of the job description.
A pack of diseased monkeys could come up with a more logical statutory scheme.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2013, 05:37:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:54:17 PM
What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system.
No, what this case highlights is what happens when you remove the independence of the judiciary from criminal law and place it in the hands of the legislature.
Bingo.
Force the law into a state of ignorance about the facts, and idiotic results will follow.
Seems like this makes the facts irrelevant in determining a sentence, rather than making the law ignorant of the facts.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2013, 05:50:38 PM
A pack of diseased monkeys could come up with a more logical statutory scheme.
No we couldn't!
It is odd though that if you are found with fifty pounds of cocaine crammed in your trunk you will get 10 years less then if you are trying to sell a bottle of commonly prescribed main medication.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2013, 03:10:39 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:00:44 PM
First of all, I highly doubt it's common knowledge that you can serve a minimum of 25 years for selling some pills to a friend. Secondly, the lack of outrage over something that is so clearly a disproportionate punishment is very chilling. It's like you people lack conscience or something. :blink:
Can't be bothered to feel outraged about half a million dead babies a year, why should this be different?
It's far more than half a million dead babies. Something like 1/3 to 1/2 of all babies spontaneously abort (often failing to even attach to the uterus). And people praise the being responsible for murdering all those babies!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 03, 2013, 05:44:37 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2013, 05:08:13 PM
Well, what do you expect when lawyers have made themselves a law unto themselves and set up a ridiculous system? People are disenfranchised and so they vote for stupid men who offer stupid solutions, like the mandatory minimum. Nobody trusts a judge, so it seems like a good idea to remove as much discretion from them as possible.
That is why you are doomed to failure.
You still don't grasp that lawyers don't create foolishness, there are just force multipliers for the foolishness that the system and its actors foist upon them.
And what you do grasp, but are willfully ignoring out of perfidious loyalty to your guild, is that the lawyers ARE the actors. How many legislators have a law degree?
Quote from: grumbler on April 03, 2013, 06:37:04 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 03, 2013, 03:10:39 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:00:44 PM
First of all, I highly doubt it's common knowledge that you can serve a minimum of 25 years for selling some pills to a friend. Secondly, the lack of outrage over something that is so clearly a disproportionate punishment is very chilling. It's like you people lack conscience or something. :blink:
Can't be bothered to feel outraged about half a million dead babies a year, why should this be different?
It's far more than half a million dead babies. Something like 1/3 to 1/2 of all babies spontaneously abort (often failing to even attach to the uterus). And people praise the being responsible for murdering all those babies!
Thanks Marty.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 03, 2013, 04:49:55 PM
Trolling. Why didnt he just give his friend the pills. I mean..come on dude.
Because his friend was offering him $1800, and the guy was a restaurant worker. Who turns down free money?
Of course, the informant was instructed to pay a ridiculously large amount of money for the drugs, so as to make it easier to convince a jury to convict.
He made a profit!!!oneoneoneI hope the people thinking this is no big deal aren't the ones whining about having to pay "so goddamn much in taxes."
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 05:09:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2013, 04:57:42 PM
Presumably he'll be paroled after a decade or so, at which point he'll have hopefully picked up some tips on how to commit violent crime.
These mandatory minimum sentence structures in Florida follow the same track as life sentences: you do not gain time for good behavior, or qualify for parole. It's a mandatory sentencing structure. 25 years = 25 years.
Florida is a failed state.
I am just going to keep my fucking mouth shut. But this shit makes me seethe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2013, 02:42:39 PM
He should have gotten probation at most.
Agreed on that. Reading the article, no prior record, sold some old pain pills. Plus no reason for such a heavy minimum sentence unless maybe he's doing a lot more, long record, etc.!
Out of curiosity anyone know what you get if you traffic less than amounts in Seedy's table? I.e. <25 pounds of ganja or <28 grams of Bolivian marching powder? Does it turn into possession?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2013, 04:37:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 03, 2013, 03:33:33 PM
Quote from: Maximus on April 03, 2013, 03:03:02 PM
Lacking a conscience is considered a sign of strength among certain tribes.
Yeah, especially the tribe of stupid internet faggots.
Wait, isn't that your tribe?
Presumably, he doesn't limit either his stupidity or his faggotry to the internet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 03, 2013, 07:49:42 PM
Out of curiosity anyone know what you get if you traffic less than amounts in Seedy's table? I.e. <25 pounds of ganja or <28 grams of Bolivian marching powder? Does it turn into possession?
I found this link on the dope:
http://norml.org/laws/penalties/item/florida-penalties
The fact that the fiscal burden to the taxpayer features prominently in the article is interesting. It seems pretty irrelevant compared to depriving a man of his liberty for a very long time for a non violent first offense. That suggests a very amoral, solely fiscal view on this. If money is the only way to argue about cases like this, people seem to lack empathy and respect for what is supposedly America's core value, freedom.
Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2013, 12:03:44 AM
The fact that the fiscal burden to the taxpayer features prominently in the article is interesting. It seems pretty irrelevant compared to depriving a man of his liberty for a very long time for a non violent first offense. That suggests a very amoral, solely fiscal view on this. If money is the only way to argue about cases like this, people seem to lack empathy and respect for what is supposedly America's core value, freedom.
Are you new here?
The cost is irrelevant to me, since prisons are one of the few things I think it's legitmate for the govenement to spend money on.
Well, not exactly irrelevant. Convicts get too many material comforts; prisions should be harder on them, and cheaper on us.
That said, 25 years for what he did is far too long. 3-5 seems about right.
Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2013, 12:03:44 AM
The fact that the fiscal burden to the taxpayer features prominently in the article is interesting. It seems pretty irrelevant compared to depriving a man of his liberty for a very long time for a non violent first offense. That suggests a very amoral, solely fiscal view on this. If money is the only way to argue about cases like this, people seem to lack empathy and respect for what is supposedly America's core value, freedom.
Yeah, that struck me as well.
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2013, 12:11:30 AM
That said, 25 years for what he did is far too long. 3-5 seems about right.
:blink: Five years for selling prescription pills? Are you out of your mind?
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2013, 12:22:28 AM
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2013, 12:11:30 AM
That said, 25 years for what he did is far too long. 3-5 seems about right.
:blink: Five years for selling prescription pills? Are you out of your mind?
I've always wanted to see that snooty pharmacist at Walgreens knocked down a peg.
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2013, 12:11:30 AM
The cost is irrelevant to me, since prisons are one of the few things I think it's legitmate for the govenement to spend money on.
Well, not exactly irrelevant. Convicts get too many material comforts; prisions should be harder on them, and cheaper on us.
That said, 25 years for what he did is far too long. 3-5 seems about right.
Which material comforts are you talking about?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 04, 2013, 12:33:24 AM
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2013, 12:11:30 AM
The cost is irrelevant to me, since prisons are one of the few things I think it's legitmate for the govenement to spend money on.
Well, not exactly irrelevant. Convicts get too many material comforts; prisions should be harder on them, and cheaper on us.
That said, 25 years for what he did is far too long. 3-5 seems about right.
Which material comforts are you talking about?
That would be the regular passive anal sex :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:54:17 PM
What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system.
No, what this case highlights is what happens when you remove the independence of the judiciary from criminal law and place it in the hands of the legislature.
Bingo. I don't see how minimum or automatic penalties are found constitutional.
Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2013, 12:03:44 AM
The fact that the fiscal burden to the taxpayer features prominently in the article is interesting. It seems pretty irrelevant compared to depriving a man of his liberty for a very long time for a non violent first offense. That suggests a very amoral, solely fiscal view on this. If money is the only way to argue about cases like this, people seem to lack empathy and respect for what is supposedly America's core value, freedom.
Yeah, well, you're not from Chicago.
You'd expect this from Thailand or Burma, but it seems incredible that this can happen in a western country.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2013, 12:22:28 AM
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2013, 12:11:30 AM
That said, 25 years for what he did is far too long. 3-5 seems about right.
:blink: Five years for selling prescription pills? Are you out of your mind?
For the ones that are often abused and are a pretty significant drug abuse problem in some areas-- absolutely.
Just for comparison, in Soviet Union, the bastion of freedom that it was, the maximum prison sentence for any crime was 15 years (except for the rare cases where death penalty was applicable).
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2013, 10:08:08 AM
Just for comparison, in Soviet Union, the bastion of freedom that it was, the maximum prison sentence for any crime was 15 years (except for the rare cases where death penalty was applicable).
WELL THEN BY ALL MEANS GO BACK.
:P
Anyway, that's a bit misleading, isn't it? Couldn't they put you in a psychiatric facility indefinitely if you were politically 'dangerous'? And prison conditions there were (are) a lot tougher than here.
Quote from: derspiess on April 04, 2013, 10:14:14 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2013, 10:08:08 AM
Just for comparison, in Soviet Union, the bastion of freedom that it was, the maximum prison sentence for any crime was 15 years (except for the rare cases where death penalty was applicable).
WELL THEN BY ALL MEANS GO BACK.
:P
Anyway, that's a bit misleading, isn't it? Couldn't they put you in a psychiatric facility indefinitely if you were politically 'dangerous'? And prison conditions there were (are) a lot tougher than here.
Just putting things in perspective, to highlight how abnormal it is by world standards for Americans to be comfortable with prison sentences of multiple decades.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2013, 01:28:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:54:17 PM
What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system.
No, what this case highlights is what happens when you remove the independence of the judiciary from criminal law and place it in the hands of the legislature.
Bingo. I don't see how minimum or automatic penalties are found constitutional.
Punishments that are cruel and unusual are unconstitutional. But if they're automatic, they aren't going to be unusual, now are they?
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2013, 10:29:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2013, 01:28:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:54:17 PM
What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system.
No, what this case highlights is what happens when you remove the independence of the judiciary from criminal law and place it in the hands of the legislature.
Bingo. I don't see how minimum or automatic penalties are found constitutional.
Punishments that are cruel and unusual are unconstitutional. But if they're automatic, they aren't going to be unusual, now are they?
Not sure if you are being facetious, but my objection to them is grounded more in the fact that this is essentially the legislative usurping the power of the judicature.
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2013, 10:32:04 AM
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2013, 10:29:59 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 04, 2013, 01:28:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 05:06:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 03, 2013, 03:54:17 PM
What cases like that highlight is that America hasn't been enlightened yet when it comes to judicial system.
No, what this case highlights is what happens when you remove the independence of the judiciary from criminal law and place it in the hands of the legislature.
Bingo. I don't see how minimum or automatic penalties are found constitutional.
Punishments that are cruel and unusual are unconstitutional. But if they're automatic, they aren't going to be unusual, now are they?
Not sure if you are being facetious, but my objection to them is grounded more in the fact that this is essentially the legislative usurping the power of the judicature.
The legislative branch has always had the power to establish the penalty for a crime. They can chose to draft a statute that gives the judiciary more or less discretion in sentencing, but the judiciary has never had absolute discretion.
There are some exceptions--for example, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws that make the death penalty automatic for 1st degree murder are unconstitutional--but in general, the judiciary hasn't contested the legislative power in this area.
Quote from: dps on April 04, 2013, 10:40:47 AM
The legislative branch has always had the power to establish the penalty for a crime.
The legislative branch has always had the power to establish stupid laws. Mandatory sentencing laws are but one example of the legislative branch exercising that power.
Quote from: DGuller on April 04, 2013, 10:24:58 AM
Just putting things in perspective, to highlight how abnormal it is by world standards for Americans to be comfortable with prison sentences of multiple decades.
Why would an American care about world standards?
Quote from: Zanza on April 04, 2013, 12:03:44 AM
The fact that the fiscal burden to the taxpayer features prominently in the article is interesting. It seems pretty irrelevant compared to depriving a man of his liberty for a very long time for a non violent first offense. That suggests a very amoral, solely fiscal view on this. If money is the only way to argue about cases like this, people seem to lack empathy and respect for what is supposedly America's core value, freedom.
I understand your point but I think the fiscal argument is also important from a social policy perspective. The argument that it makes no sense to remove a productive member from society and have the rest of society pay for his incarceration of 25 years for such a minimal offence is obvious.
Of course, but the effect on society is of less concern to me than the effect on the individual in question.