Drug War Sentencing
Sorry about being the world’s worst blogger — on regularity that is. It’s not a regular summer, except for one thing - we still get a lot of mail from prisons. Wally Parades wrote fairly recent:
Dear NC:
Many years have passed since I last wrote your organization… I am presently 64 years of age. I am serving an imposed sentence of 360 months for the non-violent, victimless offense of a single delivery of a controlled substance to a paid, contractual, criminal informant. No money ever exchanged hands, and not a single person witnessed the alleged offense. Yet, a jury believed the paid testimony of a person making a living by accusing others.
This September I begin my 20th year in prison. Over the past two decades all of my family, but one sister has passed away. For two decades I have listened to the hopes and dreams of legislation to come, that would put an end to these draconian sentences.
For years, elderly offenders such as I, looked hopefully to an elderly offender law that just might afford us our last years with the few loved ones we have left. The Second Chance Act of 2007 has a very limited program, not subject to law, but subject to the discretion of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
The US Sentencing Guideline’s in Chapter Four, clearly exclude convictions over 15 years old for establishing a criminal history score, yet the Second Chance Act permits ‘any’ prior conviction of violence to exclude an inmate’s eligibility. More so, the Bureau of Prisons uses relevant conduct, and acquitted conduct. [As the federal judge must use in sentencing —Ed. Note] An individual charged, but exonerated of the offense, still has a history of violence… Respectfully, Wally
Today, I ran across an article from the Washington Times, June 29, 2008, "Revelant Conduct" Can Add Time to Sentences. It was great to see one. Steven Kalar, a senior litigator in the Northern District of California's Office of Federal Public Defender believes the Supreme Court will take up the issue soon. Here's a small excerpt:
"The point, he [Kalar] said, is that a criminal defendant might not benefit greatly from acquittal of all the charges in a major conspiracy case except for a seemingly minor count.
Problem explaining these two concepts is 'cognitive dissonance'. People live their lives believing a certain thing, then someone tells them it ain't that way. They simply don't hear the new information.
Orrin Hatch did it back in 1998 when the 3 judge panel of 10th Circuit ruled that testimony rewarded with promise of leniency unconstitutional. Orrin's instant reaction was something like ".... The entire federal system relies on it", and the 10 judge en banc Circuit agreed with Orrin. It was such a shocking idea it must be wrong. (His exact quote is probably archived somewhere at Media Awareness Project.)
Same way the idea that the sentencing guidelines should be guidelines. "What, you mean they're not?" Cognitive dissonance again. (Humpty Dumpty said "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.")
Same problem with 'real offense' and 'relevant conduct'. Yes, it is amazing...
Thanks John, and for those still with me, plug your nose and dip into the world of word-spin, where the words do not mean what would ordinarily come to mind when you saw them. Real Offense Sentencing and Guideline Sentencing are samples of those, so remember the guidelines aren’t guides, but mandatory sentencing ranges, and the ‘real offense’ and ‘relevant conduct’ tells the stories of rewarded informant(s).
The first mention of “Real Offense” I can find in our sentencing and penal history is a story out of 1833 Sing-Sing prison, uncovered during a special legislative investigation. Guards wove wire into their whips and as men arrived to begin their sentence, they were stripped, then lashed across their genital area “for alleged offenses committed previous to conviction,” and other assorted things. I found that in an old historical piece, "We Are the Living Proof," written by Dr. David Fogel, one of the designers of our "modern era of sentencing."
Today relevant conduct, and real offense pushes drug offenders sentences so high, and so often, that it “can have a dramatic impact on sentence length, often eclipsing the impact of all other sentencing factors.” That's from Professor Berman's writing on this very subject, (page 106) A More Perfect System: Distinguishing Offense Conduct and Offender Characteristics.
When the Sentencing Reform Act was passed 1984, the United States Sentencing Commission, a new governmental entity was charged with implementing the new sentencing system. The newly formed Commission was divided, hurried and a draft became law. I found that assessment of the day, in a gem called, From the Ne'er-Do-Well to the Criminal History Category: the Refinement of the Actuarial Model in Criminal Law, by Benard E. Harcourt, Professor of Law, beginning on page 121.
If you have the ability to print these documents, and send them to a federal prisoner, suggesting they share it in the law library of the prison if possible --that is one way of creating more discourse, between academia and people effected by the laws. If reforms may be coming, if the Supreme Court will further rule on the validity of prison sentences based more on 'informants' bartered words' and 'acquitted conduct' then it's time for all the people in the middle to weigh in, too. The average person in the United States welcomes understanding.
Your comments, your stories of how your loved one is serving mandatory 'guideline' time on acquitted conduct -- called "relevant" and "real offense" continue to be important, and you can leave comments below.
We'll be discussing this subject in much more length, thanks for following along.
In Struggle,
Nora
Dear NC:
Many years have passed since I last wrote your organization… I am presently 64 years of age. I am serving an imposed sentence of 360 months for the non-violent, victimless offense of a single delivery of a controlled substance to a paid, contractual, criminal informant. No money ever exchanged hands, and not a single person witnessed the alleged offense. Yet, a jury believed the paid testimony of a person making a living by accusing others.
This September I begin my 20th year in prison. Over the past two decades all of my family, but one sister has passed away. For two decades I have listened to the hopes and dreams of legislation to come, that would put an end to these draconian sentences.
For years, elderly offenders such as I, looked hopefully to an elderly offender law that just might afford us our last years with the few loved ones we have left. The Second Chance Act of 2007 has a very limited program, not subject to law, but subject to the discretion of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
The US Sentencing Guideline’s in Chapter Four, clearly exclude convictions over 15 years old for establishing a criminal history score, yet the Second Chance Act permits ‘any’ prior conviction of violence to exclude an inmate’s eligibility. More so, the Bureau of Prisons uses relevant conduct, and acquitted conduct. [As the federal judge must use in sentencing —Ed. Note] An individual charged, but exonerated of the offense, still has a history of violence… Respectfully, Wally
Today, I ran across an article from the Washington Times, June 29, 2008, "Revelant Conduct" Can Add Time to Sentences. It was great to see one. Steven Kalar, a senior litigator in the Northern District of California's Office of Federal Public Defender believes the Supreme Court will take up the issue soon. Here's a small excerpt:
"The point, he [Kalar] said, is that a criminal defendant might not benefit greatly from acquittal of all the charges in a major conspiracy case except for a seemingly minor count.
Prosecutors still can point to 'relevant conduct' - the acquitted charges that jurors rejected or other accusations the jury never heard - and ask a judge to mete out a tougher sentence.
Mr. Kalar said that while juries must make their findings based beyond a reasonable doubt, sentencing judges instead can base their findings on a preponderance of evidence."
Problem explaining these two concepts is 'cognitive dissonance'. People live their lives believing a certain thing, then someone tells them it ain't that way. They simply don't hear the new information.
Orrin Hatch did it back in 1998 when the 3 judge panel of 10th Circuit ruled that testimony rewarded with promise of leniency unconstitutional. Orrin's instant reaction was something like ".... The entire federal system relies on it", and the 10 judge en banc Circuit agreed with Orrin. It was such a shocking idea it must be wrong. (His exact quote is probably archived somewhere at Media Awareness Project.)
Same way the idea that the sentencing guidelines should be guidelines. "What, you mean they're not?" Cognitive dissonance again. (Humpty Dumpty said "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.")
Same problem with 'real offense' and 'relevant conduct'. Yes, it is amazing...
Thanks John, and for those still with me, plug your nose and dip into the world of word-spin, where the words do not mean what would ordinarily come to mind when you saw them. Real Offense Sentencing and Guideline Sentencing are samples of those, so remember the guidelines aren’t guides, but mandatory sentencing ranges, and the ‘real offense’ and ‘relevant conduct’ tells the stories of rewarded informant(s).
The first mention of “Real Offense” I can find in our sentencing and penal history is a story out of 1833 Sing-Sing prison, uncovered during a special legislative investigation. Guards wove wire into their whips and as men arrived to begin their sentence, they were stripped, then lashed across their genital area “for alleged offenses committed previous to conviction,” and other assorted things. I found that in an old historical piece, "We Are the Living Proof," written by Dr. David Fogel, one of the designers of our "modern era of sentencing."
Today relevant conduct, and real offense pushes drug offenders sentences so high, and so often, that it “can have a dramatic impact on sentence length, often eclipsing the impact of all other sentencing factors.” That's from Professor Berman's writing on this very subject, (page 106) A More Perfect System: Distinguishing Offense Conduct and Offender Characteristics.
When the Sentencing Reform Act was passed 1984, the United States Sentencing Commission, a new governmental entity was charged with implementing the new sentencing system. The newly formed Commission was divided, hurried and a draft became law. I found that assessment of the day, in a gem called, From the Ne'er-Do-Well to the Criminal History Category: the Refinement of the Actuarial Model in Criminal Law, by Benard E. Harcourt, Professor of Law, beginning on page 121.
If you have the ability to print these documents, and send them to a federal prisoner, suggesting they share it in the law library of the prison if possible --that is one way of creating more discourse, between academia and people effected by the laws. If reforms may be coming, if the Supreme Court will further rule on the validity of prison sentences based more on 'informants' bartered words' and 'acquitted conduct' then it's time for all the people in the middle to weigh in, too. The average person in the United States welcomes understanding.
Your comments, your stories of how your loved one is serving mandatory 'guideline' time on acquitted conduct -- called "relevant" and "real offense" continue to be important, and you can leave comments below.
We'll be discussing this subject in much more length, thanks for following along.
In Struggle,
Nora
Labels: Federal Guideline Sentencing, Real Offense, Relevant Conduct
posted by Nora Callahan at
1:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home