Federal drug laws create a labeling issue. When you hear the term "drug trafficker," you might consider Pablo Escobar or Walter White, but the truth is that under federal law, drug traffickers include individuals who purchase pseudo-ephedrine for their methamphetamine dealership; act as intermediary in a series of small deals; and even pick up a travel suitcase for the wrong good friend. Thanks to conspiracy laws, everyone on the totem pole can be based on the exact same severe necessary minimum sentences.
To the men and females who drafted our federal drug laws in 1986, this might come as a surprise. According to Sen. Robert Byrd, cosponsor of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the factor to attach 5- and ten-year compulsory sentences to drug trafficking was to punish "the kingpins-- the masterminds who are really running these operations", and the mid-level dealers.
Fast forward twenty-five years. Today, nearly everybody convicted of a federal drug criminal offense is founded guilty of "drug trafficking", which most of the time results in a minimum of a five- or ten-year necessary jail sentence. That's a great deal of time in federal jail for many individuals who are minor parts of drug trade, the large bulk of whom are men and women of color.
This is the system that federal district Judge Mark Bennett sees every day. Judge Bennett sits on the district court in northern Iowa, and he manages a lot of drug cases., I would have sent 1,092 of my fellow people to federal prison for mandatory minimum sentences varying from sixty months to life without the possibility of release.
The numbers can't convey the unreasonable tragedy of it all. This is how he explains a recent drug trafficking case:
I recently sentenced a group of more than twenty accused on meth trafficking conspiracy charges. All of them plead guilty. Eighteen were 'pill smurfers,' as federal district attorneys put it, meaning their function amounted to frequently buying and providing cold medicine to meth cookers in exchange for really small, low-grade quantities to feed their serious addictions. The majority of were unemployed or underemployed. Numerous were single mothers. They did not offer or directly distribute meth; there were no stockpiles of money, weapons or counter surveillance equipment. All of them faced mandatory minimum sentences of sixty or 120 months.
There is information to suggest that Judge Bennett's experience is not uncharacteristic. In 2007, the U.S. Sentencing Commission assembled considerable information on cocaine and crack sentencing. They discovered that in 2005, the majority of the lowest-level drug- and crack-trafficking defendants-- males and females described as "street-level dealerships", "couriers/mules", and "renter/loader/lookout/ enabler/users"-- received 5- or ten-year compulsory prison sentences. This is particularly real for crack-cocaine defendants, most of whom are black; in spite of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, offering a small quantity of crack cocaine (28 grams) brings the same obligatory minimum sentence-- 5 years-- as offering 500 grams of powder drug.
This is the truth for which proponents of severe federal drug laws should account. We can not pretend that heavy sentences for women like Kemba Smith and guys like Jamel Dossie are the fluke mistakes of overboard laws. We need to admit that our sentencing of small individuals in the drug trade to prison terms meant for the leaders of big drug companies-- as www.criminallawyerslasvegas.com/drug-conspiracy-defense-las-vegas/ a common incident, not as an exception. As a result, we unnecessarily lock up great deals of minor transgressors for long periods. Judge Bennett decries the human expenses of these sentences:
If lengthy compulsory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug abuser in fact worked, one might be able to rationalize them. But there is no proof that they do. I have seen how they leave hundreds of countless young kids parent-less and thousands of aging, infirm and passing away moms and dads childless. They destroy families and strongly fuel the cycle of poverty and addiction.
Here, once again, we have proof that Judge Bennett is right: long mandatory sentences are unneeded for most drug culprits. In 2002 and 2003, Michigan and New York rescinded mandatory sentences for drug transgressors and offered judges the power to enforce much shorter sentences, probation, or drug treatment. The sky didn't fall, however criminal activity rates did. So did prison costs.
For years, Judge Bennett has actually seen a system that doesn't make sense. He has actually seen mandatory laws written for the most major, massive drug dealers applied to the men and women on the most affordable rungs of the drug trade, and he has actually seen it occur a lot. We as soon as imagined that extreme obligatory sentences would be utilized to handle the leaders of large drug operations. It's time our federal drug laws were fit to individuals that they truly target.
If you have been charged with a drug related offense and need qualified representation, contact us to discuss your case.
Mace Yampolsky & Associates
625 S 6th St.
Las Vegas, NV 89101