Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents
HomeMembers LoginLatest NewsRefer A LawyerMessage BoardOnline StoreAffiliatesAbout UsContact Us
Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents Worldwide!
Site Navigation
Visit Our Store
Refer A Lawyer
Affiliates
Link To Us
Latest News
Top Secret Documents
Make A Donation
Important Case Law
Members Login
Feedback
Message Board
Legal Information
Advertise your AD, Book or Movie

Informants and Agents?Who's a Rat Message Board

WhosaRat.com
Sign up Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
admin

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 535
Reply with quote  #1 

LAST WEEK, Utah federal judge Paul G. Cassell sentenced a man who beat an elderly woman to death with a log to 22 years. A few hours later, Cassell sentenced a 25-year-old first-time drug offender to 55 years.

If you think Cassell liked sentencing a small-change drug dealer to more time than a violent killer, guess again. The judge had no choice. Federal law demanded the sentence, despite Cassell's pointed questioning if there was a "rational basis" for sentencing Weldon H. Angelos, the father of two young children, to more time than he could sentence a hijacker, murder or rapist.

Blame federal mandatory minimum sentencing rules. A jury found Angelos guilty on three separate charges of possessing a firearm while he sold a half- pound of marijuana for $350. The first charge of possessing a gun during a drug transaction brought a five-year sentence -- the second two, 25 years each. That adds up to 55 years, so even if Angelos was found guilty of selling $1,050 of drugs, Cassell had to follow the rules and sentence Angelos to 55 years on the gun charges. (The judge, however, did use a recent federal ruling as grounds for reducing the sentence for the drug-selling crimes to one day.)

Cassell did the right thing in imposing the draconian sentence. If he ignored federal law, he'd be placing himself above it.

Instead Cassell sentenced Angelos as the law directed, even as he righteously hectored Congress to rewrite federal drug laws so that first-time offenders don't serve more time than dangerous career criminals. The judge also urged Angelos' attorney, Jerome Moody, to appeal the sentence and, if appeals fail, seek a presidential commutation.

While civil-rights advocates across America protested the sentence, the Utah U.S. attorney's office defended the system. To prosecutors, Angelos is no Boy Scout. Officials found some 26 empty duffel bags with marijuana residue. Local feds believed Angelos was a big drug dealer, Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Lund told me, and associated with a violent street gang.

Let me say this: Angelos never was a good poster boy for the movement to humanize draconian federal drug laws. Angelos turned down a plea bargain sentence of 16 years. He is considered a first-time offender only because a juvenile gun conviction was expunged. And even if Angelos didn't wave his gun in people's faces, he nonetheless brought a gun with him during the transactions.

The reason Angelos has become a national cause célèbre isn't Angelos, but Cassell. There are more egregious examples of first-time offenders being sentenced to decades for petty dealing, but they didn't come before a judge vocally opposed to the heavy-handed nature of federal drug sentencing.

That said, it simply doesn't make sense that federal sentences often are tougher on small-time drug offenders than violent criminals. But it happens all the time.

Just last week, the Albuquerque Journal reported on a case in which a federal judge claimed that he sentenced a man who killed his own mother to 6 1/2 years after he sentenced a 29-year-old mother of three to life without parole because she had a gun while dealing marijuana.

It's not right. Congress passed tough federal drug laws because Washington wanted harsh time for drug kingpins. But too often, prosecutors cut deals that reduce sentences for drug ringleaders who inform on other offenders, then show no mercy on low- and midlevel offenders. Often, it's the worst criminals who figure out how to game the system -- according to Angelos' attorney, the informant who testified against Angelos had a "bad" rap sheet.

In effect, Angelos is set to spend an extra 30 years in prison -- assuming he is let out for good behavior -- simply because he wouldn't agree to a plea bargain with the U.S. Attorney's office.

Note that at one point, prosecutors agreed justice would be served if Angelos served 16 years. Now they are defending a sentence that far outstrips the time many killers serve.

Families Against Mandatory Minimums, based in Washington, estimates that the cost of jailing Angelos will be $1.3 million.

The cost to Angelos: Life behind bars until he is well into his twilight years. His sister told the Salt Lake Tribune that 55 years will be "worse than a death in the family" as the terms will present "constant torture."

Cassell himself called the sentence "unjust, cruel and even irrational." Too bad that in Washington, the federal sentencing system is considered something entirely different: highly popular.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.

0
jenroth

Registered:
Posts: 37
Reply with quote  #2 
Article Last Updated: 11/25/2004 11:42:35 PM The Salt lake city tribune


Explain this



While I can appreciate the hard-line responses of several recent Public Forum contributors concerning the federal minimum sentencing guidelines, I have some real concerns about the ultimate unbalanced scales of justice that we all witness daily. I want the “bad guys” off the streets and in jail, whoever they are.
   A young man who sells drugs and possesses a handgun and has no prior criminal record is sentenced   to 55 years in prison with no parole (Tribune, Nov. 17). Many of you have said that you're tired of hearing the whining and complaining and that he got what he deserved. Fair enough. Or is it?
   A man who went fishing with his buddies last summer got drunk and beat one of his pals to the point that the guy died a few hours later (Tribune, Nov. 23). He is sentenced to five years in prison. Which one of you legal   experts or social scientists can explain that horrific discrepancy to me?
   
   Bill Lines
   Salt Lake City

0
Guey

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #3 
Not unlike most of our Gustapo type authorities, they see no problem with completely ruining someone's life over a victimless crime. Question authority, question authority!

Rape, murder, etc. NO PROBLEM, catch a MF with a dime bag and all hell breaks loose.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

? ?
Copyright ? 2001-2004 Who?s A Rat. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.
?