ACLU: Two Frustrated Federal Judges Show Us How to Have a More Fair and Effective Justice System

[marmar]

Two Frustrated Federal Judges Show Us How to Have a More Fair and Effective Justice System
By Alex Stamm, ACLU Center for Justice at 3:52pm


In 2010, 22-year-old Jamel Dossie served as a middle-man in a series of hand-to-hand crack sales. After three transactions involving a federal informant, Mr. Dossie had handed over – “sold” – a total of 88.1 grams, or 3.1 ounces, of crack. For his part, he earned $140.

Unfortunately for Mr. Dossie, selling more than 28 grams of crack triggers a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. This March, after a short sentencing proceeding in which federal Judge John Gleeson wasn’t allowed to consider Mr. Dossie’s very minor role in the transaction, his remorse for the offense or his personal background, the prosecutor called for a five-year prison sentence, and that was that.

The proceeding didn’t sit well with Judge Gleeson, whose role was more that of observer than participant. In his lengthy opinion, he lamented Mr. Dossie’s sentence and asked the Department of Justice to “refrain from dictating severe mandatory minimum penalties when it cannot prove…that the defendant was the kind of drug dealer for whom those penalties were enacted.” He’s talking about kingpins (for whom the 10-year minimums were written) and middle management (the five-year guys) – not minor players like Mr. Dossie.

Among the various weaknesses of mandatory minimum sentencing, argued Judge Gleeson (as have many other legal experts), is that it prohibits small-time drug offenders like Mr. Dossie from being diverted into more effective alternative programs. For 20 years, Brooklyn’s Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison program has been treating offenders like Mr. Dossie, and graduates of the program are 50 percent less likely to commit another crime than similar offenders who went to prison instead. A better criminal justice system would allow a judge to determine the best way to rehabilitate defendants, instead of mandating a one-size-fits-all punishment. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-prisoners-rights/two-frustrated-federal-judges-show-us-how-have-more-fair

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, marmar.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. As a judge who is appointed for life, Judge Gleeson could have done more than just ask the DOJ "to

refrain ..."

As an example, he could have allowed jeopardy to attach and then ruled that there was not sufficient evidence for a conviction while also saying that the mandatory sentencing violated the separation of powers doctrine.

Where's a Judge Jeffreys when you need him?

How does the application of manatory sentencing not violate the Due Process guarantee when openly admitted war criminals and banksters are walking around free, rich, and happy. Could the answer be that there are no war criminals and no banksters?