
Former federal judge to President Obama: Free the man I sentenced to 55 years - shahryc
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/09/former-federal-judge-to-president-obama-free-the-man-i-sentenced-to-55-years-in-prison/
======
joshfraser
In 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?

~~~
gozur88
Like almost everything the government does that's stupid on its face,
mandatory minimums were a reaction to a different problem. Voters were angry
because there were wide disparities in sentencing, and it seemed some judges
were wont to give out light sentences no matter how heinous the crime. It's
probably not unreasonable to say "If you kill someone, you should serve _at
least_ this amount of time regardless of circumstances."

It's also not unreasonable to think large disparities in sentencing are
fundamentally unfair. The amount of jail time you get is supposed to depend on
what you _did_ and not which judge presided over your sentencing.

But along the way mandatory minimums became a way for politicians to project
the "tough on crime" image. You'd have a news article about a guy who just got
out of jail killing an eight year old in a botched drug deal, then the next
day Senator Simpleton is there at a press conference announcing a new bill to
add 25 years to everybody caught with a gun at a drug deal.

It's virtually impossible for any politician to stand up at that time and say
"That seems like an awfully long sentence for being in possession of a
firearm."

~~~
peteretep

        > The amount of jail time you
        > get is supposed to depend on
        > what you did and not which
        > judge presided over your
        > sentencing
    

I think that's specifically what judges are _for_ in a common law system,
isn't it?

~~~
girvo
Yes, correct, but that's not what the populace wanted at the time. Despite the
fact that weakening that by definition is weakening the justice systems
ability to mete out real, actual justice.

~~~
Ntrails
Not really, your punishment should fit the crime and therefore be related
exactly to what you did (and the circumstances in which you did it) - and
definitely not based on which member of the judiciary you are randomly
assigned.

So yes, whilst judges are supposed to have lots of discretion- there should
also be oversight to ensure they're somewhat aligned with each other.

Mandatory minimums are a populist solution to headlines about setencing.

------
rayiner
> 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.

~~~
jpatokal
The law in question is specifically a drug law:

 _924(c).Federal drug laws require 5- to 30-year mandatory minimum sentences
for possessing, brandishing or discharging a gun during a drug-trafficking
crime._

By my reading of that, this applies even if the gun itself was entirely legal.

~~~
hueving
Right, it punishes people for having a completely legal firearm present during
another crime. Wouldn't you think that's to discourage guns just as much as to
discourage trafficking?

~~~
tbrownaw
Or even for owning one that wasn't present at the time (the gun later found in
his home).

------
mikeash
How 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
It 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
In 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
Correct. 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.

------
iconjack
Remember 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!

~~~
o0o0_ooo
Sanders, who I assume you're referring to, only supports decriminalization of
marijuana. I'll still be staying at home on voting day.

~~~
ascorbic
Right, because ideological purity is much better than pragmatism. You have no
preference at all between the candidates, because none of them favour complete
legalisation? You'd rather have no decriminalisation than just some?

~~~
o0o0_ooo
The drug war is only one of many reasons that I am apolitical. I don't accept
that I have a legitimate choice -- to me, voting would be tacit acceptance of
the legitimacy of our political process.

------
bluejekyll
Correct 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
Any 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
You'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.

------
PhantomGremlin
Just 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
No, the justice system is just handing out the sentences that the Congress has
decided people in different situations should get.

------
ScottBurson
So 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
The 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.

------
pcwalton
Link to the opinion in question:
[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/9733](https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/9733)

------
brohoolio
"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
TIL we pay more money to take care of prisoners than I get paid to take care
of myself.

------
fiatmoney
He 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-
th...](https://popehat.com/2013/12/23/burn-the-fucking-system-to-the-ground/)

~~~
pdonis
Burn 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.

~~~
caf
_The only precedent the article cites is the French Revolution. How did that
work out?_

Famously, it's too early to tell.

~~~
ptaipale
Although that response (by Zhou Enlai) was, of course, based on
misunderstanding. Zhou thought the question was about the 1968 riots and
consequential societal change, not the 1789 revolution.

