draconian mandatory sentencing

I've heard several truly unjust stories on WBUR over the last few years regarding mandatory sentences.

A Republican appointed judge stepped down from the bench after having to sentence a female first time offender to five years. She had two small children, was going through a nasty divorce and went out with some girl friends. She was caught buying a nominal amount of cocaine. She had no history of drug abuse. Because she was within a certain radius of an elementary school, she was sentenced as though she had the intention of dealing to kids. She was busted around midnight.

A 25 year old male in Utah was recently sentenced to 55 years for possession of 8 ounces of pot, on three different occasions. On two of those occasions he had a gun.

A 19 year old woman got 25 years for allowing her boyfriend to sell crystal meth out of her apartment. She was charged with aiding and abetting.

Hijacking an airplane gets 25 years.

Murder gets far less. I forget the figure but it was in the teens.

An old acquaintance just spent two months in prison for driving with a suspended license. He was in his early 40's and had gotten one DUI and had no priors, prior to that one especially horrific evening.

Yet the unethical Ken Lay and the treasonous Robert Novak walk free.

Why on earth should taxpayers be paying $30,000-60,000 per year incarcerating non-violent criminals? Anyone guilty of non-violent crimes should be forced to to excessive community service and be fined up the wazoo. Can you imagine what we would save and how many individuals would be reformed?

The dehumanization of petty criminals and first time offenders only insures the perpetuation of outrageously high rates of lives of crime. Rehabilitation scarcely exists.

I met a guy from Denmark a long time ago who was a reformed junkie. He had gotten caught was thrown into detox and then was forced to work with detoxing teens for six months. He had his head screwed on straight and was leading a productive and adventurous life.

end of rant.

The law should be able to take in all circumstances, and be applied accordingly.

what the judges were complaining about.

One of their primary jobs is to weigh the merits of a case and with mandatory sentencing, they have been stripped of that role. These measures give prosecutors way too much power and strip both defendants and judges of most of their's.

Because that 30 to 60 thousand that could be better spent on that non-violent criminal must be spent instead to increase and expand the private prison industry complex and earn a nice return for the investor. That's why.

Until we change this, it will only get worse.

Unfortunately, the Democrats insist on not pursuing it, because they lack the spine to form an effective argument to do so. All one needs to do is trot out stories like you presented, and that will go a long way.

I just posted this thread in the Gungeon, about the guy who got 55 years just for the 3 weapons charges, he was a drug dealer, but he never used those weaponsn to commit a crime.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x94036

I have no problem with harsh punishments to fit the crime, but it should be up to either the judge or jury, it should not be up to the politicans.