10 ms·
Former federal judge to President Obama: Free the man I sentenced to 55 years
- bluejekyll 11y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the gun related charges have caused two issues to happen here: 1) The minimum sentence was exceptionally harsh. 2) Because of the guns, it makes it somewhat of a political hot potato since it looks like he "could" be violent.
- protomyth 11y agoAny law that mention guns that simply counts their alleged presence is bogus. I can see if it was used in commission of a crime but not "he might of had one in the car". If you judge owning a gun = violent the you are part of the problem that sentences people like this to unjustified sentences (edit: I do not assume that is the parent poster's opinion).
- bluejekyll 11y agoYou're right. My only point was that in this case the guns are a double whammy, they both caused the ridiculously harsh sentence and then also probably the political reason he's not getting the sentence commuted.
- joshfraser 11y agoIn 2004, when Cassell sentenced Angelos, he wrote a lengthy opinion, comparing Angelos’s sentence (738 months) with the guideline sentences for the kingpin of three major drug trafficking rings that caused three deaths (465 months), a three-time aircraft hijacker (405 months), a second-degree murderer of three victims (235 months) and the rapist of three 10-year-olds (188 months). Where is the justice? Is there anyone who could argue this is the way we want our judicial system to work? Why can't we fix this already?
- matwood 11y agoIt is basically an end run around the 2nd amendment. Since the anti-gun lobby cannot outlaw them completely they tack on automatic sentence multipliers for any crime where a gun is found even if the gun was not directly used.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoIt also spits on the 8th amendment's provision against cruel and unusual punishment. A lifetime of incarceration for a non-violent offense isn't a fitting punishment nor a suitable use of government power.
- duaneb 11y agoI have come to understand this brutal sentencing structure, or at least some of the reasoning. It appears to be the "other side" of the question "how many guilty men should go free for how many innocent men"? The strength of the punishment is proportional to how hard it is to convict with certainty. The aggressive sentencing is greatly exaggerated to form a disincentive for all the men we cannot convict. Justice strikes me of an area where humans tend to reason intuitively. It's also an area that is extremely difficult to measure in any quantitative way. I would be highly interested in understanding what drives existing criminals--my own intuition tells me these sentences are not very preventative, but allow for the illusion of making progress against crime, particularly violent crime. (These people are monsters! Thank god they're gone for life, or the dangerous part of their life.)
- justinpombrio 11y agoMy understanding is that this has been studied, and criminals are deterred almost entirely by the certainty of being caught, and almost not at all by the severity of punishment.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoVaries. Texas sentenced petty criminals to hoe potatoes in the desert sun. Petty crime recidivism plummeted in Texas.
- iconjack 11y agoRemember folks, now that Rand Paul has dropped out, there is one candidate left who is not a drug warrior. This will be the easiest vote I've ever cast. Edit: I was not fair to Trump on this. He apparently isn't a drug warrior. Still gonna be an easy vote for me though!
- mikeash 11y agoWho are you referring to? (Edited to remove sarcasm. That wasn't really necessary.)
- jonnybgood 11y agoI think they're referring to Bernie Sanders. http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-drug-policy/ http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-drug-policy/
- matwood 11y agoPretty good summary here: http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/08/most-republican-presidential-candidates http://reason.com/archives/2016/02/08/most-republican-presid... The OP is probably referring to Sanders, but Trump has said let the states do whatever they vote for.
- chimeracoder 11y ago> but Trump has said let the states do whatever they vote for. Not just that, but Trump supported marijuana legalization as far back as 1990. That was right around the height of the war on drugs, in between "Just Say No" of the Reagan years and the anti-drug, tough-on-crime propaganda of the Clinton years. I can't really endorse pretty much anything else Trump says, but it really can't be overstated how rare it was for anyone to be standing up for marijuana legalization (publicly) 25 years ago.
- ascorbic 11y agoHe also seems to support single-payer healthcare, and has complimented the system in Scotland. Funny that GOP voters seem to give him a pass on all of the sort of issues that would kill other candidates' chances.
- mikeash 11y agoHow is it that this person was convicted on three gun charges, when two of them were (according to the article) based on nothing but the testimony of a single person? The sentence is absurd even if the gun charges are all true, of course, but this seems like an amazingly lax standard of proof as well.
- Fjolsvith 11y agoIt has to do with the way that sentences are enhanced after a conviction. Probation officers are assigned to research the "facts" of a case after a conviction and write a Presentencing Report for the judge. Federal sentence ranges are computed using a grid system. Different "facts" adjust the row or column of the eventual range of months a judge legally has to sentence a person within. Probation officers can be extremely thorough and throw in all kinds of things, or can omit things in the sentence computation. If a person makes a plea agreement with the Prosecutor, they are essentially saying that such and such facts are relevant and these other ones don't apply to the sentence. If there are any possible enhancements not nailed down in the agreement, the Probation Officer can come in and say these are relevant and surprise! Your 5 year plea just became a 15 year sentence. (edit) Also, multiple convictions for crimes typically have the sentences run consecutively.
- mikeash 11y agoIn short, the facts on which you're convicted may be completely different from the facts on which you're sentenced? Sounds like a rather blatant end run around the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing.
- Fjolsvith 11y agoCorrect. Federal supervision officers have a great deal of discretion when writing their reports. They can take information that has never been shown to the judge and use it to enhance the sentence guidelines that the judge has to follow. Besides, the reasonable doubt part only applies to a conviction.
- PhantomGremlin 11y agoJust for perspective: This guy sells marijuana 3x, $350 each, to a narc. He gets 55 years. Jeffrey Keith Skilling, poster child for white collar crime, convicted of conspiracy, insider trading, making false statements to auditors, securities fraud, and insider trading, gets 14 years. The justice system in this country is more fucked up than I could have thought possible.
- Fjolsvith 11y agoNo, the justice system is just handing out the sentences that the Congress has decided people in different situations should get.
- alanwatts 11y ago"We hang the petty thieves, and appoint the great ones to public office" -Aesop Skilling was a noob. The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a better example.
- rayiner 11y ago> He received five years for the gun in the car; 25 years for the second gun charge, having one in an ankle strap; and another 25 years for a third firearms charge, the gun police found in his home. He got one day for the marijuana. Pretty disingenuous for the lede to lay this all on the war on drugs when the real reason for the long sentence in this particular case is the war on guns. > His case has been widely championed, including by Utah’s Republican Sen. Mike Lee, former FBI Director Bill Sessions, the group Families Against Mandatory Minimums and conservative billionaire Charles Koch. Food for thought for those who think the drug war was/is driven by the "establishment" rather than by the grass roots of ordinary voters.
- gjm11 11y ago> the real reason [...] is the war on guns. That's not so clear (to me, at least). Those outrageous 25-year sentences are specifically for having a gun during a drug-trafficking crime.
- tbrownaw 11y ago"Officers later searched his home and found a gun." .... "and another 25 years for a third firearms charge, the gun police found in his home." That's not one he had during the transactions. Unless all three are the same one? The article doesn't seem to have anything that rules that out.
- areyousure 11y agoAccording to the link to the opinion https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/9733 https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/9733 found in this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11070928 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11070928 , the gun summary appears to be the following: "[Count #1:] ... observed Mr. Angelos' Glock pistol by the center console of his car. [Count #2:] .... Mr. Angelos lifted his pant leg to show him the Glock in an ankle holster.... [Count #3:] The search revealed a briefcase which contained ... a handgun .... also recovered two other guns in a locked safe, one of which was confirmed as stolen. .... two more guns ..." In short, five guns were found under Angelos's control. The two possessed during transactions are perhaps the same, but may or may not be one of the three found in his home. I believe the sentence "Officers later searched his home and found a gun." from the original article is misleading; officers found three. In any case, the government charged Angelos with five §924(c) counts: two counts for the one during transactions, one count for the three guns found at his home, and two more counts for the two guns found at his girlfriend's. The jury found him not guilty of the last two counts.
- fiatmoney 11y agoHe should have refused to apply the sentence. So the sentence potentially gets overturned on appeal, great. The appellate judges should refuse to apply the sentence. So they get overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court, great. The Supreme Court should refuse to apply the sentence. Or, I guess they can spend their time overturning thousands of decisions per year. Burn it down. https://popehat.com/2013/12/23/burn-the-fucking-system-to-the-ground/ https://popehat.com/2013/12/23/burn-the-fucking-system-to-th...
- pdonis 11y agoBurn it down, and then what? The only precedent the article cites is the French Revolution. How did that work out? Now if you had said, appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court in the hopes of getting the mandatory sentencing law in question declared unconstitutional, that would be fine. But that isn't what you said.
- fiatmoney 11y agoNo one put a gun to the head of the judge in question and forced him to do anything. He simply could have chosen to not apply the sentence. Likewise the court above him, and so on. This is a far cry from the guillotine (some might say the opposite).
- pdonis 11y ago> He simply could have chosen to not apply the sentence. Not if he wants to uphold the law. As soon as you replace the law with personal whim, you could end up anywhere, including the guillotine. There is a way within the law to challenge it; but that way is not to just refuse to apply it if you don't like what it says.
- fiatmoney 11y agoYou are under a misapprehension that the legal system is not currently a naked exercise of personal power.
- mistermann 11y agoThe tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
- mikeyouse 11y agoI know I shouldn't feed the trolls.. but are you honestly advocating murdering a Federal judge who followed sentencing guidelines? Exactly who should be put to death here?
- mistermann 11y agoTechnically, someone can bleed without dying, but more seriously, this type of case isn't all that unusual, and it is so blatantly and obviously wrong, I don't think a logical argument can fix it. Sadly, some people only learn through force.
- vacri 11y agoStirring, breast-beating slogans aren't usually thrown out there for their technical truth.
- jacquesm 11y agoIt's a call to revolution. (Not that that makes it make more sense.)
- pcwalton 11y agoLink to the opinion in question: https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/9733 https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/9733
- ScottBurson 11y agoSo what would happen to a federal judge if he just didn't impose the mandatory minimum sentence in a case like this? Wouldn't the constitutional separation of powers protect him from any consequences?
- Fjolsvith 11y agoThe judge would get in trouble. Basically, if he didn't follow the guidelines and went lenient, the Prosecutor would appeal the case and get the sentence into the guideline range. If the judge went over the maximum guideline amount, the Defendant could appeal the case. No judge likes having his rulings overturned because he didn't follow the law.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- brohoolio 11y ago"The fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in Fiscal Year 2011 was $28,893.40." That is at least $1,500,000 million dollars. Very expensive.
- alanwatts 11y agoTIL we pay more money to take care of prisoners than I get paid to take care of myself.