Jump to content

What Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Looks Like


Recommended Posts

Cruel and unusual: Harsh sentence fails the test of justice

Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated:12/07/2006 06:24:33 PM MST

"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."


Supreme Court Justice

When U.S. District Court Judge Paul Cassell sentenced Utah record producer and pot dealer Weldon Angelos to 55 years in prison, he was following the law.

When he joined with a who's who of the American bar to argue that that very sentence was, in Cassell's words, "unjust, cruel and even irrational," he was seeking justice.

The fact that justice and the law do not match is not Cassell's fault. It is the fault of Congress.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case brought by Angelos that his sentence, though mandated by law, is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.

If an effective life sentence for such a common crime, invoked merely because Angelos was found to be carrying a gun when he was caught selling marijuana to undercover police officers, is not cruel and unusual, it's hard to imagine what would be.

As the brief filed by 145 one-time prosecutors, including four former U.S. attorneys general, pointed out, Angelos' sentence is double what would be handed down to someone who was convicted of hijacking an airliner or being the kingpin behind a death-dealing drug cartel.

Angelos was operating in a world where everyone carries weapons because, as the song goes, you always carry cash. That the law that set the sentence or the prosecutors who invoked it should be offended at the presence of a weapon in that environment is childish.

Cassell could have refused to impose the sentence and dared prosecutors to get him overturned on appeal. The fact that he declined to do so shows Cassell, who would never be mistaken for a bleeding-heart liberal in any circumstance, cannot be dismissed as an "activist judge."

Because neither the U.S. Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court would rescue Cassell's conscience from his sense of duty, it is now up to Congress to change the law, and up to President Bush to commute the sentence.

Prospects for such action are slim, given that few politicians advance their careers by putting justice ahead of retribution.

But mandatory minimum sentences are deservedly losing popularity all along the political spectrum. The Angelos case is evidence that they fail the definition of justice, and should end.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Good article today on the Conservative approach to "justice", namely an analysis by Correctional Services Canada that reveals much of the CPC justice legislation would lead to "dramatic increases in the prison population", no #'s given but it seems to bolster the case of the doubters over the supporters in this folder. Nice to see the more ridiculous bills were amended by the opposition, the Harper Conservatives are basically moving forward with draconian, and proven to be ineffective measures that many US States implemented in the 90's and are now reversing.

There's a lot of politics going on here, the Cons basically have loaded the House agenda with these Bills and many won't be passed purely due to lack of time, then in the next election the CPC will campaign that their tough "law and order agenda, to keep Canadian streets safe" was blocked by the pinko opposition parties.

You heard it here first.

Jailers fear PM's justice overhaul

The Toronto Star

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Page: A01

Section: News

Byline: Tonda MacCharles

Source: Toronto Star

Federal government proposals to get tougher on criminals would hit aboriginal people the hardest, violate Charter rights of inmates, and likely not make for safer streets, says the agency that oversees federal prisons.

Underlying some of the agency's criticism is concern about dramatic increases in the prison population that would result from the Conservatives' approach.

Among the targets in an analysis prepared by Correctional Services Canada's strategic policy division are proposals for mandatory minimum sentences and for the so-called three-strikes law, key elements of the Tories' law-and-order agenda.

The analysis says minimum sentences don't have a deterrent effect and drain away funds available for social programs that prevent crime.

The proposal for a three-strikes law - designating as a dangerous offender anyone convicted of a third violent or sexual offence - would have a "disproportionately higher impact" on native people, the analysis says.

The analysis took aim at almost every law-and-order promise that would affect prisoners made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives during the election campaign a year ago.

The final version of the document, obtained by the Star under Access to Information legislation, is dated Jan. 24, 2006 - the day after the Conservatives won the election. It outlined "considerations" for the new government on each of its proposed policies, as well as advice on the "direction/way forward."

The final document and its early drafts contain several blacked-out sections. But the public servants' critique appears to offer more ammunition to the government's critics.

Only two crime bills have passed - tougher penalties for street racing and a watered-down version of the promised restrictions on conditional sentencing or "house arrest."

The rest of the Tories' promised measures are either stalled in the minority Parliament, or still to be introduced. But Harper appears undeterred by either opposition or concerns of the public service, naming law and order as still among the government's priorities.

Here are some key excerpts from the bureaucrats' analysis:

On mandatory minimum prison sentences, legislation which the Conservatives have introduced for gun- and gang-related crime, and promised for serious drug offences, and for crimes committed while on parole or for repeat offenders: "Research shows mandatory minimums do not have a deterrent or educative effect." It notes the United States is moving away from mandatory minimum sentences, and embarking on reforms to improve parole to ease crowding and reduce incarceration rates. It says "increased incarceration reduces funds available for social programs that prevent crime."

On Harper's promise to repeal statutory release, the legal right to early release for prisoners who serve two-thirds of their sentences, upon good behaviour: Such a proposal would have a huge impact on prison populations. The document says two-thirds of all federal offenders released in 2004-05 were statutory releases, with generally few problems. In the last five years, it said, only 3 per cent of offenders out on statutory release saw their freedom revoked "for a violent offence."

The biggest advantage, it suggests, is the ability of correctional authorities to supervise the inmate in the community for the last third of a sentence.

Impact on aboriginal offenders is flagged. Without statutory release, it says, they would "be further delayed in their return to the community, preventing them from benefiting from more culturally appropriate interventions."

On promised consecutive sentences for multiple violent or sexual offences: "Credible research shows that longer sentences do not contribute to public safety and may actually increase the risk of recidivism (repeat offences) for some offenders."

On promises to kill the "faint hope" clause that allows inmates sentenced to life a possibility of bidding for parole after 15 years in jail: The analysis makes clear that most eligible offenders do not bother to apply. Of those who have ultimately won parole, only a handful have been returned to custody.

(As of Dec. 2004, there were 712 eligible lifers, it said. Since 1991, when the "faint hope" clause became available - access to it was tightened in 1997 - 118 of 145 applicants were successful in winning parole, and of those, 17 were returned to custody for breaching the conditions of their release.)

On Harper's suggestions that a Tory government would take away voting rights from federal prisoners: The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld prisoner-voting rights as "unfettered."

On a proposal to automatically designate as a "dangerous offender" anyone convicted of a third violent or sexual offence (sometimes called the "three-strikes" bill): The bureaucrats' analysis says because aboriginal offenders have a higher rate of conviction for assault and related offences, the proposal could have a "disproportionately higher impact" on natives.

A "dangerous offender" designation draws an indefinite sentence, and the offender can't apply for parole until after at least seven years in custody.

On restricting access to conditional sentences (also known as "house arrest"): Conditional sentences are imposed in fewer than 5 per cent of all cases, have reduced admissions to provincial jails by 13 per cent with no negative impact on crime rates, and "generally worked well and garnered praise from sentencing experts around the world," said the bureaucrats.

As it turned out, the combined Liberal, Bloc Quebecois and New Democratic opposition succeeded in substantially amending this bill, and a watered-down version passed the Commons and Senate. A source told the Star yesterday that without the amendments, the law would have had a huge impact on provincial jail populations.

After last week's cabinet shuffle, Harper repeated his resolve to push ahead with the law-and-order agenda.

But he is clearly frustrated with the kind of advice his government has received from the public service.

On Sunday, asked what he'd learned as prime minister, Harper complained on CBC Radio's Cross-Country Check-up of the "practical" difficulties of working with bureaucrats.

Harper said the most difficult thing he had to learn as prime minister "is dealing with the federal bureaucracy." It is a question of getting "the bureaucracy moving in the direction you want them to move while not becoming ... captive of them. ..."

A call to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day's office was not returned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Harper gets his way we will have this hear too. Our prison population will double overnight and we'll be well on our way to the American Prison-Industrial complex. Yippeeee!




(can't believe I'm agreeing with some of you!)

For the record I have no problem with locking up criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record I have no problem with locking up criminals.

I'm sure it would be a challenge to find people who do have a problem with locking up criminals. But what does that have to do with the logistics (political and judicial) and consequences (judicial and social) of mandatory minimum sentencing, except at the most superficial level?

... appears we've tackled this one on more than one occassion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i wasn't dumbing down the issue, i was writing a simple tongue-in-cheek sentence. No need to be a prick.

and i didn't bother to extrapolate all the social implications and logistics because i haven't thought about the issue enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...