8 ms·

If you watch the video embedded, you'll see that he actually ran a large network that smuggled cocaine from Miami to Seattle. A little more serious than the kid

by SeoxyS 13y ago

If you watch the video embedded, you'll see that he actually ran a large network that smuggled cocaine from Miami to Seattle. A little more serious than the kid who sells an 8-ball to his college classmate.

asveikau 13y ago
I don't know what the right punishment is for that, but the original sentence of 45 years seems too steep. As does 25.
- SeoxyS 13y ago
  I agree, but that also depends on the offender. In a way, you could make an argument that prison should not have timed sentences, but rather that it should be "you stay until it is deemed that you will not offend again, and that you can be a productive member of society." After all the word "corrections" implies that something should be corrected, not that somebody should be punished.
  - jeffdavis 13y ago
    It's partially deterrent and partially corrections. If it were only for corrections, then it would cause all kinds of problems. The most obvious one is that you get one "free crime" to commit. There's also a fairness (and rule-of-law) argument: if two people steal $100 each, why would one person be let out earlier?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      >There's also a fairness (and rule-of-law) argument: if two people steal $100 each, why would one person be let out earlier? If that's your justification then the horse has already left the barn, developed space travel and colonized Mars. Look at the number of factors that go into sentencing -- or just the definition of the crime, like what was stolen (distinct from its market value) and how (e.g. on a computer vs. in person vs. in a conspiracy with accomplices), then there is a lot of flexibility for the sentence itself (most sentences are "up to" X penalty) with a whole list of mitigating and exacerbating circumstances in the sentencing guidelines, subsequent parole for good behavior in prison, etc. etc.
      - jeffdavis 13y ago
        I wasn't justifying anything. The person to whom I replied ignored a few obvious and valid arguments, and I was filling that void. Even if prison was entirely intended for corrections, it is punishment (a denial of freedom). So there is a fairness argument that if two people do reasonably similar crimes that they should get comparable sentences. That is just one argument though, and fairness (as always) is weighed against other arguments.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Do you really want prison times to be completely flexible? There is a lot of potential for abuse there.
    - cheeseprocedure 13y ago
      I had this reaction too, but if an offender is given opportunities to become a more conscientious and educated human being through hard work, it seems reasonable that we would want them released (and contributing to society in a positive way) sooner rather than later.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        That already happens. "Released early for good behavior", early parole, etc.
        yoster 13y ago
        Federal time is different. It is day by day. Only way you can get time off of your sentence is by going through drug classes.
    - gijjk 13y ago
      Parole exists, which makes prison times extremely flexible, The exception is mandatory minimums, which are generally only for murder and for handling drugs that non-white/rich people tend to be disproportionately involved with.
      - sliverstorm 13y ago
        I was thinking about maximum times, not minimums. There is no opposite of parole to extend their sentence, that I know of.
- atechnerd 13y ago
  Cocaine use was a major problem in the 80's, which also gave rise to the crack epidemic which was even worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic Santos was considered a "King Pin" under the law, which essentially meant that he had several people working under him and was also dealing with very large financial transactions (this by his own admission in the UC Berkeley video). By today's standards the punishment may seem harsh, but at the time it was probably appropriate.
  - asveikau 13y ago
    So patronizing. I was born in DC; I don't need the Wikipedia article on the crack epidemic. You really think locking people up is what solved that problem?
    - OGinparadise 13y ago
      So patronizing. I was born in DC; I don't need the Wikipedia article on the crack epidemic. Put that on your profile so next time this topic come up we know. Seriously. I didn't know that about you and time and time again posters post something from the past to give context. Context might explain why the "tough on crime" politicians pushed for mandatory sentences even for minor amounts.
      - _delirium 13y ago
        I would say that playing to populist fears explains just about everything related to "tough on crime" politicians. It's also curious that the same "tough on crime" politicians seem for the most part surprisingly uninterested in the root causes of crime, such as poverty or lack of access to education.
        tokenadult 13y ago
        Are you really sure that if there were no poverty and everyone had lots of education that there wouldn't be that kind of crime? Where are your real-world data to back up that idea?
- ed209 13y ago
  until you see the many lives destroyed by drugs. from mothers abandoning their children, to ending up homeless and alone, to deaths and murders. Sure he's just one cog in a giant machine, but he's also responsible for death and hardship as a result of the drugs he moved. Society in general also carries some of the responsibility, as do those involved in his upbringing. But I know that if my child came to any harm as a result of the drugs he supplied for his own profit I'd want him to be behind bars for that long - or until he was rehabilitated. "In 2004, 17% of U.S. State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-related_crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-related_crime
  - WA 13y ago
    You make it sound like your children don't have a choice whether to take drugs or not. You could argue similarly by replacing drugs with anything (legal) that could harm your children. For example, do you blame motorcycle vendors for being responsible for deaths and hardship among the families of motorcyclists? Drugs and motorcycles are certainly different, but it's a bit too easy to blame drug traffickers or dealers only without taking into consideration the parents and the social circle of the children.
    - mike_esspe 13y ago
      In modern society it is implied, that person taking drugs is losing their free will and requires guardianship. Whether it is scientifically correct is a question.
      - mynameisvlad 13y ago
        Doesn't change the fact that the person, in most cases, had to make a choice to start taking the drugs. It's not as if you wake up one day, and you're now instantly addicted to cocaine and are destroying your life. You had to make the choice to start using the drugs.
        13y ago

by SeoxyS 13y ago

asveikau 13y ago

I don't know what the right punishment is for that, but the original sentence of 45 years seems too steep. As does 25.

SeoxyS 13y ago
I agree, but that also depends on the offender. In a way, you could make an argument that prison should not have timed sentences, but rather that it should be "you stay until it is deemed that you will not offend again, and that you can be a productive member of society." After all the word "corrections" implies that something should be corrected, not that somebody should be punished.
- jeffdavis 13y ago
  It's partially deterrent and partially corrections. If it were only for corrections, then it would cause all kinds of problems. The most obvious one is that you get one "free crime" to commit. There's also a fairness (and rule-of-law) argument: if two people steal $100 each, why would one person be let out earlier?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    >There's also a fairness (and rule-of-law) argument: if two people steal $100 each, why would one person be let out earlier? If that's your justification then the horse has already left the barn, developed space travel and colonized Mars. Look at the number of factors that go into sentencing -- or just the definition of the crime, like what was stolen (distinct from its market value) and how (e.g. on a computer vs. in person vs. in a conspiracy with accomplices), then there is a lot of flexibility for the sentence itself (most sentences are "up to" X penalty) with a whole list of mitigating and exacerbating circumstances in the sentencing guidelines, subsequent parole for good behavior in prison, etc. etc.
    - jeffdavis 13y ago
      I wasn't justifying anything. The person to whom I replied ignored a few obvious and valid arguments, and I was filling that void. Even if prison was entirely intended for corrections, it is punishment (a denial of freedom). So there is a fairness argument that if two people do reasonably similar crimes that they should get comparable sentences. That is just one argument though, and fairness (as always) is weighed against other arguments.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Do you really want prison times to be completely flexible? There is a lot of potential for abuse there.
  - cheeseprocedure 13y ago
    I had this reaction too, but if an offender is given opportunities to become a more conscientious and educated human being through hard work, it seems reasonable that we would want them released (and contributing to society in a positive way) sooner rather than later.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      That already happens. "Released early for good behavior", early parole, etc.
      - yoster 13y ago
        Federal time is different. It is day by day. Only way you can get time off of your sentence is by going through drug classes.
  - gijjk 13y ago
    Parole exists, which makes prison times extremely flexible, The exception is mandatory minimums, which are generally only for murder and for handling drugs that non-white/rich people tend to be disproportionately involved with.
    - sliverstorm 13y ago
      I was thinking about maximum times, not minimums. There is no opposite of parole to extend their sentence, that I know of.
atechnerd 13y ago
Cocaine use was a major problem in the 80's, which also gave rise to the crack epidemic which was even worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic Santos was considered a "King Pin" under the law, which essentially meant that he had several people working under him and was also dealing with very large financial transactions (this by his own admission in the UC Berkeley video). By today's standards the punishment may seem harsh, but at the time it was probably appropriate.
- asveikau 13y ago
  So patronizing. I was born in DC; I don't need the Wikipedia article on the crack epidemic. You really think locking people up is what solved that problem?
  - OGinparadise 13y ago
    So patronizing. I was born in DC; I don't need the Wikipedia article on the crack epidemic. Put that on your profile so next time this topic come up we know. Seriously. I didn't know that about you and time and time again posters post something from the past to give context. Context might explain why the "tough on crime" politicians pushed for mandatory sentences even for minor amounts.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      I would say that playing to populist fears explains just about everything related to "tough on crime" politicians. It's also curious that the same "tough on crime" politicians seem for the most part surprisingly uninterested in the root causes of crime, such as poverty or lack of access to education.
      - tokenadult 13y ago
        Are you really sure that if there were no poverty and everyone had lots of education that there wouldn't be that kind of crime? Where are your real-world data to back up that idea?
ed209 13y ago
until you see the many lives destroyed by drugs. from mothers abandoning their children, to ending up homeless and alone, to deaths and murders. Sure he's just one cog in a giant machine, but he's also responsible for death and hardship as a result of the drugs he moved. Society in general also carries some of the responsibility, as do those involved in his upbringing. But I know that if my child came to any harm as a result of the drugs he supplied for his own profit I'd want him to be behind bars for that long - or until he was rehabilitated. "In 2004, 17% of U.S. State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-related_crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-related_crime
- WA 13y ago
  You make it sound like your children don't have a choice whether to take drugs or not. You could argue similarly by replacing drugs with anything (legal) that could harm your children. For example, do you blame motorcycle vendors for being responsible for deaths and hardship among the families of motorcyclists? Drugs and motorcycles are certainly different, but it's a bit too easy to blame drug traffickers or dealers only without taking into consideration the parents and the social circle of the children.
  - mike_esspe 13y ago
    In modern society it is implied, that person taking drugs is losing their free will and requires guardianship. Whether it is scientifically correct is a question.
    - mynameisvlad 13y ago
      Doesn't change the fact that the person, in most cases, had to make a choice to start taking the drugs. It's not as if you wake up one day, and you're now instantly addicted to cocaine and are destroying your life. You had to make the choice to start using the drugs.
      - 13y ago