On July 29th, 2008 at 12:39 pm, Rusty said:

To be clear, mandatory sentencing is a bargaining chip law enforcement needs to illicit damaging testimony from one guilty party against another, in return for a lighter sentence. It was misapplied in this case.

You understand that this means drug dealers can turn on people below them on the drug chain. The big dealer can get off and the lowly dude selling eights gets five years?

Regardless of drug sentencing, the mandatory sentencing here reeks too. You can’t support mandatory minimum sentencing for everyone except for people you personally feel sorry for. It’s an all or nothing thing. It needs to go.

I think you have a reasonable point here. It is kind of like the way the “no tolerance” drug and gun laws are prosecuted against schoolchildren for getting expelled/suspended for giving a friend an aspirin or making a drawing of a gun. Nonsensical misapplication of insufficiently specific laws.

The real cure is better judges and politicians. Probably more the latter, since they appoint many of the judges…

You understand that this means drug dealers can turn on people below them on the drug chain.

Exactly! It’s the Sargeant York philosphy of “luring out and picking off the followers first.” And too, better one than none.

It was misapplied in this case.

Read: the agents are innocent and should not have been charged in the first place, simply for doing their jobs.

On July 29th, 2008 at 12:39 pm, Rusty said:

Fair enough.

But i dont support giving the larger fish a deal to turn others in.

In fact, it should be “if you dont turn in your cohorts, we UP the sentences”.

That, to me, seems fair. For criminals, i’ll less about coddling them, and ALL about negative reinforcement.

It needs to go.

No.This is what presidential pardons are for – when they aren’t being reserved for “scummies” like Marc Rich.

To people who say I’m changing the subject by bringing up mandatory minimum sentencing, get a grip.

We question you and your intent. So you get a grip. Start your own BLOG if you like.

Talk-talk – talking won’t make it happen.

To be clear, mandatory sentencing is a bargaining chip law enforcement needs to illicit damaging testimony from one guilty party against another, in return for a lighter sentence. It was misapplied in this case.

You understand that this means drug dealers can turn on people below them on the drug chain. The big dealer can get off and the lowly dude selling eights gets five years?

Regardless of drug sentencing, the mandatory sentencing here reeks too. You can’t support mandatory minimum sentencing for everyone except for people you personally feel sorry for. It’s an all or nothing thing. It needs to go.

Answer:
Cheap labor, open-borders, corporations, wealth, Saudi, Arbusto, Bandar Bush…… if you see the connection.

Not really. I mean, if you want to play the 6 steps of seperation, maybe…I just dont see the direct relevance based on what you’re claiming. That is what i’m focusing on. I personally think you’re injecting this to obscure the issue by blaming Bush for something that really isn’t his fault. While I absolutely believe he needs to pardon them, and its shameful he hasnt already, the problem didnt start with him. And blaming the president for something that falls first and heavily on the prosecutor is a misdirection at best. Same some of your venom for him and those like him, please.

Rusty,
I dont think you’re changing the subject, per se.

The law states that discharging a firearm during a crime is an automatic 10 years.

This law was never meant to be used against law enforcement agents during the lawful discharge of their duties. If you read the case studies involved on this, I believe some of that may help clear some of the confusion up.

Secondly, I agree that we need to allow for some extenuating circumstances. For instance, a lowly pot peddler sentenced to a federal prison means he did something else other than just sell weed. How about on school property? Does that not warrant a higher penalty, since he’s selling to kids? If the dope (pun intended) sells to people on federal land, or breaks federal law while selling that crap, then yes, he deserves a federal sentence. How about possession of an illegal firearm… i mean, we ARE talking about a drug dealer, they do tend to carry guns too. Depending, there’s more federal charges. I find that to be fair.

You have people who need treatment rotting in our already bloated prison system.

true. But did they seek treatment before they were incarcerated? While i think we should try help some of these people, there are things in the private sector that deal with this. It shouldnt be left just up to the taxpayer.

Statement from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher:Unfortunately, the Court has sided with the prosecutors who threw the book at the good guys and the good guys have lost this round. This makes President Bush’s role in this miscarriage of justice even worse…….