Kiriakou writes: "Judges can't blame Congress and mandatory minimums for
everything. On many issues, especially crimes not related to drugs, judges
have wide latitude in sentencing. But most simply follow the federal
sentencing schedule, which does not account for any extenuating
circumstances. That's why Judge Block's ruling was so newsworthy."
Mandatory minimums. (photo: Drugpolicy.org)
Unfair, Inappropriate and Merciless
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
29 May 16
A federal district court judge in Brooklyn, New York, last week sentenced a
woman in a drug case to six months of house arrest, a year of probation, and
community service, saying that "the collateral consequences she would face
as a felon were punishment enough." Judge Frederic Block added that such
consequences served "no useful function other than to further punish
criminal defendants after they have completed their court-imposed
sentences."
Judge Block showed real mercy in this case. His sentencing opinion quoted
Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow, saying, "Today a criminal freed
from prison has scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a
freed slave or a black person living 'free' in Mississippi at the height of
Jim Crow."
Judge Block noted in his sentencing opinion that there were nearly 50,000
federal and state statutes and regulations that imposed penalties on felons.
In addition to prison time, those penalties include the loss of voting
rights, denial of government benefits, ineligibility for public housing,
suspension of student loans, and revocation or suspension of professional
and even driver's licenses.
Even private companies get in on the act. When I was convicted of violating
the Intelligence Identities Protection Act after blowing the whistle on the
CIA's torture program, my bank closed my checking account, my insurance
company canceled my homeowners and auto insurance, and the company through
which my wife and I hired an au pair to babysit our children dropped us.
Why? They don't do business with criminals. I also forfeited my federal
pension after 19 years of service.
When I was sitting in the courtroom awaiting sentencing, I watched as a long
line of recently-convicted felons went before me. One of them was a young
Hispanic man. He was there with his wife and his three young daughters. He
had been caught smoking weed at the Iwo Jima Memorial in Arlington,
Virginia. It was his second offense, and because it was on federal property,
it was a federal crime. He stood to be sentenced, and he heard the judge
call for three years in a federal prison, to be followed by deportation.
"Fair and appropriate," she called the sentence. She used the same words
with me a few minutes later.
I watched this poor man as he broke into heaving sobs, his girls clinging to
his legs and his wife melting into her chair. Fair and appropriate. I
remember thinking, "Is society better off, safer, with this man in prison?
Is this the best thing for his family? Is it best for his children? Is it
best for his employer? Where is the mercy?" And what additional price will
he pay after paying his debt to society? Deportation.
Judges can't blame Congress and mandatory minimums for everything. On many
issues, especially crimes not related to drugs, judges have wide latitude in
sentencing. But most simply follow the federal sentencing schedule, which
does not account for any extenuating circumstances. That's why Judge Block's
ruling was so newsworthy.
Experts lauded the move, according to the New York Times. Gabriel Chin, a
professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law called the
sentence "groundbreaking" and said, "This is by some distance the most
careful and thorough judicial examination" of collateral consequences in
sentencing.
With that said, Judge Block's opinion has its detractors. Daniel Richman, a
former federal prosecutor, said, "However laudable it is for the judge to
highlight this problem, his decision can't solve it ." Richman,
unfortunately, is right. A single judge showing mercy to a single defendant
can't change the system. Other judges - lots of them - must follow suit.
That will do nothing, though, for mandatory minimums. Only Congress can
change those. And progress is slow.
________________________________________
John Kiriakou is an associate fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies.
He is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator
with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Mandatory minimums. (photo: Drugpolicy.org)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
Unfair, Inappropriate and Merciless
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
29 May 16
federal district court judge in Brooklyn, New York, last week sentenced a
woman in a drug case to six months of house arrest, a year of probation, and
community service, saying that "the collateral consequences she would face
as a felon were punishment enough." Judge Frederic Block added that such
consequences served "no useful function other than to further punish
criminal defendants after they have completed their court-imposed
sentences."
Judge Block showed real mercy in this case. His sentencing opinion quoted
Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow, saying, "Today a criminal freed
from prison has scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a
freed slave or a black person living 'free' in Mississippi at the height of
Jim Crow."
Judge Block noted in his sentencing opinion that there were nearly 50,000
federal and state statutes and regulations that imposed penalties on felons.
In addition to prison time, those penalties include the loss of voting
rights, denial of government benefits, ineligibility for public housing,
suspension of student loans, and revocation or suspension of professional
and even driver's licenses.
Even private companies get in on the act. When I was convicted of violating
the Intelligence Identities Protection Act after blowing the whistle on the
CIA's torture program, my bank closed my checking account, my insurance
company canceled my homeowners and auto insurance, and the company through
which my wife and I hired an au pair to babysit our children dropped us.
Why? They don't do business with criminals. I also forfeited my federal
pension after 19 years of service.
When I was sitting in the courtroom awaiting sentencing, I watched as a long
line of recently-convicted felons went before me. One of them was a young
Hispanic man. He was there with his wife and his three young daughters. He
had been caught smoking weed at the Iwo Jima Memorial in Arlington,
Virginia. It was his second offense, and because it was on federal property,
it was a federal crime. He stood to be sentenced, and he heard the judge
call for three years in a federal prison, to be followed by deportation.
"Fair and appropriate," she called the sentence. She used the same words
with me a few minutes later.
I watched this poor man as he broke into heaving sobs, his girls clinging to
his legs and his wife melting into her chair. Fair and appropriate. I
remember thinking, "Is society better off, safer, with this man in prison?
Is this the best thing for his family? Is it best for his children? Is it
best for his employer? Where is the mercy?" And what additional price will
he pay after paying his debt to society? Deportation.
Judges can't blame Congress and mandatory minimums for everything. On many
issues, especially crimes not related to drugs, judges have wide latitude in
sentencing. But most simply follow the federal sentencing schedule, which
does not account for any extenuating circumstances. That's why Judge Block's
ruling was so newsworthy.
Experts lauded the move, according to the New York Times. Gabriel Chin, a
professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law called the
sentence "groundbreaking" and said, "This is by some distance the most
careful and thorough judicial examination" of collateral consequences in
sentencing.
With that said, Judge Block's opinion has its detractors. Daniel Richman, a
former federal prosecutor, said, "However laudable it is for the judge to
highlight this problem, his decision can't solve it ." Richman,
unfortunately, is right. A single judge showing mercy to a single defendant
can't change the system. Other judges - lots of them - must follow suit.
That will do nothing, though, for mandatory minimums. Only Congress can
change those. And progress is slow.
John Kiriakou is an associate fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies.
He is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator
with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
