Disproportionate mandatory minimum

[awkx]

Federal sentencing*:

• Raping a child: 11 years in jail
• Second-degree murder: 14 years in jail
• Hijacking an aircraft: 25 years in jail
• Selling marijuana thrice while exercising the right to bear arms: 55 years mandatory minimum in jail, even for transactions between peaceable adults who are otherwise law-abiding.

*Murder and rape are federal crimes only if committed in areas subject to federal jurisdiction, such as special maritime zones. These numbers are for first-time offenders under the 2003 Sentencing Guidelines.


So, you can rape a child, commit 2nd-degree murder, and hijack aircraft, but still get less jail time than for selling "evil" plants to three people while carrying a firearm? I must agree with Judge Cassell that § 924(c), as applied in certain cases, is so unjust and disproportionate that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees and Congress is apparently indifferent.

[RocketFoot]

Thats weird...I just read the same thing in an article from an old SWAT Magazine (June 2007).

I'll see if I can find it online...it was called "40 signs that your country is no longer free" by Claire Wolfe

[billamj]

Federal sentencing*:

• Raping a child: 11 years in jail
• Second-degree murder: 14 years in jail
• Hijacking an aircraft: 25 years in jail
• Selling marijuana thrice while exercising the right to bear arms: 55 years mandatory minimum in jail, even for transactions between peaceable adults who are otherwise law-abiding.

*Murder and rape are federal crimes only if committed in areas subject to federal jurisdiction, such as special maritime zones. These numbers are for first-time offenders under the 2003 Sentencing Guidelines.


So, you can rape a child, commit 2nd-degree murder, and hijack aircraft, but still get less jail time than for selling "evil" plants to three people while carrying a firearm? I must agree with Judge Cassell that § 924(c), as applied in certain cases, is so unjust and disproportionate that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees and Congress is apparently indifferent.

Ummmmmm, what is the sentence for raping a child, second degree murder or hijacking a plane if you are a three time loser? I'm guessing that the third time for any of those will get you an extended stay and the maximum security establishment of the government's choice. If you are going to do a comparisson it works better if you compare apples to apples.

[NineseveN]

Ummmmmm, what is the sentence for raping a child, second degree murder or hijacking a plane if you are a three time loser? I'm guessing that the third time for any of those will get you an extended stay and the maximum security establishment of the government's choice. If you are going to do a comparisson it works better if you compare apples to apples.

So you're saying that the pot and gun charges are based on three-strike offenders? I didn't read through all of that, and maybe you did, but my impression was that all of the charges were based on 1st time offender status. I could be missing something though.

[awkx]

Ummmmmm, what is the sentence for raping a child, second degree murder or hijacking a plane if you are a three time loser? I'm guessing that the third time for any of those will get you an extended stay and the maximum security establishment of the government's choice. If you are going to do a comparisson it works better if you compare apples to apples.

If § 924(c) were a true recidivist provision, I would agree with you that it might be appropriate. But the Supreme Court didn't interpret it that way; it applies even if you make three transactions on the same day and are convicted of all three in the same trial.

Page 35 of the PDF compares the sentences for three-time hijackers, three-time 2nd-degree murderers, and three-time child rapists. (Non-recidivists; i.e., convicted on three counts at one trial.) They're all still less than a three-time armed marijuana seller.

[billamj]

So you're saying that the pot and gun charges are based on three-strike offenders? I didn't read through all of that, and maybe you did, but my impression was that all of the charges were based on 1st time offender status. I could be missing something though.

I went by what the OP said:

Selling marijuana thrice while exercising the right to bear arms: 55 years mandatory minimum in jail, even for transactions between peaceable adults who are otherwise law-abiding.

Based on that he was comparing a three time loser, please note the "thrice" in his statement, to someone who has one conviction on any of the other charges. That is an invalid comparison. Add to that the simple fact that in his comparison there is a firearm involved with the drug conviction. Were any of those other charges to add a firearms charge they would result in even harsher sentences since they are violent crimes. Again I say, invalid comparison.

[billamj]

If § 924(c) were a true recidivist provision, I would agree with you that it might be appropriate. But the Supreme Court didn't interpret it that way; it applies even if you make three transactions on the same day and are convicted of all three in the same trial.

Page 35 of the PDF compares the sentences for three-time hijackers, three-time 2nd-degree murderers, and three-time child rapists. (Non-recidivists; i.e., convicted on three counts at one trial.) They're all still less than a three-time armed marijuana seller.

With a firearms charge?

No mention of this one?

Marijuana dealer who shoots an innocent
person during drug transaction
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(13) & (b)(2)
Base Offense Level 16 + 1 §
924(c) count
146 Months

That 146 months is less than 168 months for second degree murder.

[awkx]

With a firearms charge?

The firearms charge itself (three counts of carrying while drug-dealing) is worth 55 years. The drug penalty alone is only about 6 years, IIRC.

[billamj]

If you are committing a crime and have a firearm in your possesion you are not lawfully carrying. You brought it on yourself. You knew what the laws were and decided, of your own free will, to ignore them.

[NineseveN]

I went by what the OP said:


Based on that he was comparing a three time loser, please note the "thrice" in his statement, to someone who has one conviction on any of the other charges. That is an invalid comparison. Add to that the simple fact that in his comparison there is a firearm involved with the drug conviction. Were any of those other charges to add a firearms charge they would result in even harsher sentences since they are violent crimes. Again I say, invalid comparison.

I saw the trice, but as awkx said, it's based on 3, non-recidivist counts (i.e. 3 sales the same day, 3 rape/murder/hijacking counts the same day etc...). That's what I was thinking. "Three times" or "thrice" does not automatically invoke a 3-strikes type rule.