Rapper and former Fugees producer John Forté was one of 14 people pardoned
by President Bush on Monday, according to Reuters.He had been serving a sentence
of 14 years in prison since 2001, after being found guilty of possession of 31
pounds of liquid cocaine with intent to distribute.Orrin Hatch
fought for his release as cruel for such a talented person and he wasn't a
user he was a dealer according to Hatch (not as bad?) Of course
Hatch was hoping for some studio time for producing that garbage he call
patriotic music. Angelos was also on the pardon list but had nothing
apparently that Hatch thought he could exploit.
Re: "So we should start locking people up for crimes they might
commit."Liberals always have trouble sticking to the facts, but
when their hearts begin to bleed for someone who engages in one of their pet
vices, they get even wilder, don't they.Lest we stray too far
from reality, let's remember this was a 23-year-old gang-banging drug
dealer, who made two good-sized sales to a cop, likely hundreds more to others,
and was vicious enough to keep a deadly weapon on display while doing business.
Since being imprisoned, he's done nothing to clean up his act, atone for,
or even repudiate his criminal lifestyle. Significant amounts of money are now
being spent, lining up supporters, by someone with no visible means of access to
these amounts of cash.This situation cries out for explanation, yet
none is forthcoming.Hmmmmm. Makes it kinda hard to explain the
soft-on-crime crowd's actions.There may be people in prison who
deserve mercy. This guy has provided no evidence he's it.
Charles Manson has done less time than this kid will have to do for selling
pot.Lizzie Borden did less time than this kid will do for selling MJ.Mark Hoffman will do less time than this kid will do for selling grass.Al Capone did less time than this kid will do for selling weed.Something ain't right.
Do the crime, you do the time.
Notwithstanding my previous post I believe that our system of punishing people
for not following the rules of our society is broken. That is that it is not
justice, too expensive, excessively cruel, counter productive and ineffective.
It is not justice in that it often doesn’t fit the crime.
Whether the crime is about sex, money, health, or whatever the punishment is
always time behind bars or payment of money.If the person is a sex
offender, time in jail won’t help. A simple operation might protect the
public just as well and leave the individual to continue responsibilities to his
family. I think punishment should take away the persons ability to
do the crime. While prison does that, there may be other ways less destructive
to our society.I think the severity of the crime should be measured
in the harm done to other people. If a person robs a bank, probably nobody gets
hurt. If a person makes or sells a harmful product that kills people, no mater
if it is drugs, medicine, spinach or peanut butter the crime is worse.
This is obviously a case where the sentence was too harsh. I hope his sentence
can be reduced / commuted by the President. I remember reading a
recent story by a major paper (WSJ?) that our current president has issued far
fewer commutations than previous presidents. At least part of the reason is
because the current commutation process is lousy - certain individuals /
supervisors can misrepresent / incorrectly summarize the information and
recommendations to the president. Thank you for the article - the
commutation process needs to be improved. I hope this judgment is reduced.
@Chris B sorry that should have read precedent not president. The article
talks about not allowing these types of sentences become the standard measure or
LDS Lib,You're right, judging is wrong. We should allow each
guilty person in our country to determine their own judgment.That's what Jesus wants.Good call, you're brilliant
spring street,Who said anything about a president standing?
For all those saying this sentencing is fine, just remember we have MANY people
in the church who repented of similar issues and put their lives right. This
kid was 18 or so when this went down. In my youth he would not have even been a
legal adult. Modern science tells us their brains are not fully developed
(parenting tells us the same thing).The concept here is the
punishment (and there should be some) should fit the crime. This does not.
"We should worry less about this hardened criminal and more about his future
victims."So we should start locking people up for crimes they
might commit. What part of the constitution covers that part - preemptive
incarceration? I get the sentiment here, I don't like that we have evil
people on our streets... but we can't start locking up, or keeping locked
up because they might do something.Its just not how we do things....
ok... GITMO excepted.
I worked at the state prison for a short time as an intern. I got a good look at
what life is like for inmates. After you've seen that it's hard to
wish prison time on anybody. To take a young man, 23 years old, and lock him
away for essentially his entire life over what amounts to one huge, stupid
decision is not right. Prison sentences need more flexibility. Like the article
said, judges should be able to use judgment in sentencing. They can consider all
factors. The fact is this young man foolishly sold drugs, but those he sold to
would probably have found another place to buy them anyway. He was illegally
holding guns, but he did not use them to injure anybody. Compare this to a drunk
driver and the harm they do to people. Ever seen a drunk driver given a 55-year
sentence? Sentencing should be based on severity of the crime, the possibility
for rehabilitation of the individual, the specific circumstances, and common
sense. Politicians got involved in minimum sentencing...that's why the last
factor I listed is missing here.
procuradorfiscalTooele, UTRe: "55 years is over-kill to say the
least."His innocents victims that are still alive because
he's in jail would likely disagree.12:01 p.m. Nov. 22, 2013========= Oh, for crying out loud....Let's
just lock up each and every America "just in case" they MIGHT do
something wrong.Talk about backwards -- trampling the Constitution
-- thinking!That's so far off the mark, you've got
to be an internet troll.That like agreeing the Nazis were correct in
concentrating and gassing innocent citizens "just in case".
@procuradorfiscal – “This unrepentant tough, who -- judging from the
support he enjoys by leftist activists, has likely been further
radicalized”Oh for Pete’s sake!And folks
wonder why most people think tea party types are a bunch of angry
loons…I don’t know a thing about this guy and his
personal circumstances may very well suggest he should be locked up for life (at
a large expense to us we should note), but on the face of it (pot dealing) 55
years seems harsh… like something that would occur in a Muslim country.But the most disturbing thing this article points out is how these
mandatory sentencing laws have transferred power from judges to prosecutors.
This is not good. Prosecutors are paid to be one-sided – they do not seek
justice, they represented the State in arguing criminal action and are by
definition biased. We pay judges to be impartial and apply the law
fairly and without prejudice. If we’re just going to treat our judges like
rubber stamps we should stop the hypocrisy of calling them judges and pay the
Re: "55 years is over-kill to say the least."His innocents
victims that are still alive because he's in jail would likely disagree.
@procuralthe irony of your comment about getting out and harming people is
that as is pointed out in the article (which based on your post I have to assume
you did not read) he would have received a liter sentence had he "kill(ed)
or harm(ed) our kids and grandkids" then the none violent acts he did
commit. The reason it is important and supported by both conservatives and
liberal thinkers goes well beyond this case to protecting everyone's right
to not receive cruel and unusual punishment. @Christhe
reason you should care is that they are trying to maintaining the rights of
everyone to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. If we allow this
president to stand then it will effect how the courts determine what is
excessive in future sentencing for everything from drug dealing to parking
I do not consider myself Conservative or Liberal. For lack of a better
definition, I am Centrist. With good and bad on both sides of the aisle, I try
to judge each policy, law, situation, politician, etc. based on merits, not on a
party line or rigid political ideology. I feel that the only standard that can
be relied upon to be true, just, and fair is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.Using that as a standard, I do not think that a 55-year sentence makes
any sense at all. It will cost taxpayers $28,893.40 per year to house just this
one man (in 2011 dollars; see Annual Determination of Average Cost of
Incarceration at www.federalregister.gov). This is over $1.5 million total - a
figure likely to increase with inflation over 55 years. But worse, it defies the
teachings of the prophets who many of us claim to follow. See President
Hinckley's conference talk entitled "Forgiveness" and note the
choice made by Victoria Rivulo in a hard core New York crime that almost took
her life (see October 2005 General Conference, Sunday morning session, at
www.lds.org).Was Victoria Rivulo wrong? Is President Hinckley?
The irony is that Angelos would be out sooner had he committed rape, hijacked an
airplane or even committed some acts of terrorism. Many murderers serve lighter
sentences that what he faces.====== Agreed.over
Marijuana for crying out loud?[and if it was legal - we wouldn't
dealing it either.]55 years is over-kill to say the least.To the rest of the "throw the book at him", "lock him up and throw
away the key."You might want to consider what the Lord Judge himself
said come your own judgement day.Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye
be not judged.2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.Don't be so hard on yourselves...
55 years does seem a little excessive. The greater part of the sentance was for
the guns. However, unless he's repented, I'd say keep him in for as
long as it takes.
At first reading of the head line of this article my first impulse was to grab
and hold on to my wallet. As one who has seen his family wrecked by
illegal drugs I feel the only suitable punishment for drug dealers is death. I
propose that we make it a mandatory death sentence for anyone who makes, sells,
transports or supports the illegal drug business. I cannot understand compassion
for anyone who destructs so many lives of innocent others. My
conclusion from the information presented is that there must be a great deal of
money involved in buying sympathy for a drug dealer.
While comparing it to other sentences I agree it doesn't make sense. But
at the end of the day he's a criminal drug dealer who illegally possessed
weapons and was involved in money laundering. I just don't
feel sorry for criminals who receive severe punishments.Don't
be a criminals, its that simple
Re: " His only hope now is for commutation by a president who ought to
appreciate a rare instance of liberal and conservative agreement."What has this vicious gang-banger drug dealer done while in prison to deserve
such mindless largesse?What assurances do we have that he won't
return to his violent lifestyle, and kill or harm our kids and grandkids if let
off?This unrepentant tough, who -- judging from the support he
enjoys by leftist activists, has likely been further radicalized -- is unlikely
to be a good citizen if let out. His cause is strictly political, not
compassionate.We should worry less about this hardened criminal and
more about his future victims.