Here comes the COCAINE Train Woo-Woo

[Lookout]

Shogun, you were absolutely right...I'm back. I tried stapeling my fingers to the desk, but that didn't work.

Ok...Our wonderful Dumbass President G.W.B. the other day, opened up the trade route with Peru again and now the supreme court is making it less of a sentence for trafficing cocaine. Infact even possibly letting out many allready in prison. Makes sense to me...If you are going to inundate the United States with Cocaine, you have to have people to traffic it. And who better than those already doing time that still have connections and can move mass quantities fast. Isn't this the same thing his daddy did in the 80's?

 

[eots]

Shogun, you were absolutely right...I'm back. I tried stapeling my fingers to the desk, but that didn't work.

Ok...Our wonderful Dumbass President G.W.B. the other day, opened up the trade route with Peru again and now the supreme court is making it less of a sentence for trafficing cocaine. Infact even possibly letting out many allready in prison. Makes sense to me...If you are going to inundate the United States with Cocaine, you have to have people to traffic it. And who better than those already doing time that still have connections and can move mass quantities fast. Isn't this the same thing his daddy did in the 80's?

good to have you back

 

[Lookout]

Thanks EOTS

 

[Larkinn]

Actually it made the sentence less ( which isn't really true either, but I'll give you that for now) for trafficking in crack cocaine.

 

[Lookout]

Actually it made the sentence less ( which isn't really true either, but I'll give you that for now) for trafficking in crack cocaine.

Yeah...We'll see...Whats next?, the delorian making a comeback?

 

[Gunny]

Shogun, you were absolutely right...I'm back. I tried stapeling my fingers to the desk, but that didn't work.

Ok...Our wonderful Dumbass President G.W.B. the other day, opened up the trade route with Peru again and now the supreme court is making it less of a sentence for trafficing cocaine. Infact even possibly letting out many allready in prison. Makes sense to me...If you are going to inundate the United States with Cocaine, you have to have people to traffic it. And who better than those already doing time that still have connections and can move mass quantities fast. Isn't this the same thing his daddy did in the 80's?

Since when did the Supreme Court make law? How specifically is the SC "making" it less of a sentence for trafficking in cocaine?

 

[Larkinn]

Since when did the Supreme Court make law? How specifically is the SC "making" it less of a sentence for trafficking in cocaine?

They have made law since Marbury. The thing is they are very cautious about making law...and they generally defer to the legislature. But its not always clear cut...I haven't read the opinion (don't have time...first 1L exam in 2 days...w00t), but I'd be interested to find out how they get around it in this case.

As for how they "made" it less, they didn't really. All they did was allow judges greater discretion to skirt mandatory minimums, which generally equal a lessening of sentences since they are usually absurdly high.

 

[Larkinn]

Also...oftentimes its a matter of interpretation. The "conservatives" on the court (Scalia especially) like a textual interpretation. That is that the court should read *exactly* what a law says and nothing else. The "liberals" on the court prefer a more intent-driven interpretation...that is what Congress meant when they wrote the law.

Neither are perfect. Congress sometimes can write laws that if read gramatically and exactly, can have absurd absurd consequences. Of course finding out what a body of 535 lawmakers intended is not always easy to say the least.

 

[Lookout]

Since when did the Supreme Court make law? How specifically is the SC "making" it less of a sentence for trafficking in cocaine?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/10/scotus.crack.cocaine/index.html

 

[Gunny]

They have made law since Marbury. The thing is they are very cautious about making law...and they generally defer to the legislature. But its not always clear cut...I haven't read the opinion (don't have time...first 1L exam in 2 days...w00t), but I'd be interested to find out how they get around it in this case.

As for how they "made" it less, they didn't really. All they did was allow judges greater discretion to skirt mandatory minimums, which generally equal a lessening of sentences since they are usually absurdly high.

I was under the impression the judiciary interprets and enforces law, the legislature writes it. Granted, they can make subtle alterations depending on how imaginative their interpretations are, but I don't see how they can decrease mandatory minimums that are written into law.

Either way, I don't see where this is beneficial to the US.

 

[Lookout]

I was under the impression the judiciary interprets and enforces law, the legislature writes it. Granted, they can make subtle alterations depending on how imaginative their interpretations are, but I don't see how they can decrease mandatory minimums that are written into law.

Either way, I don't see where this is beneficial to the US.

I don't get it either, however the really bad part of the interpretation part is yet to come when the ruling gives way to being retroactive.

 

[Larkinn]

I was under the impression the judiciary interprets and enforces law, the legislature writes it. Granted, they can make subtle alterations depending on how imaginative their interpretations are, but I don't see how they can decrease mandatory minimums that are written into law.

Well they don't enforce it all, just interpret it. Yes the legislature writes it, but how they interpret it can change dramatically. You can do amazing things with the English language, and the language in most bills is pretty crappy and ambigious.

Alright...I just read the case. They didn't alter the law at all. There are mandatory minimums and then there are "sentencing guidelines". The sentence fell out of the guidelines, but was the minimum allowed by law. The court said this was reasonable.

As for it being beneficial to the US...I don't see how sentencing war veterans who have never been in jail before to 19 years in prison for selling over 5 grams of crack cocaine is beneficial to the US.

 

[hjmick]

Yeah...We'll see...Whats next?, the delorian making a comeback?

Actually...

DELOREAN MOTOR COMPANY

You can buy new build DeLoreans.

 

[Larkinn]

Gunny,

If you are actually interested in this read the opinion. I only read the first part, but what I read was not too involved in legalese. I cannot give you the link to mine as its a subscription service, and you do not fuck with lawyers, but it should not be that hard to find.

 

[Larkinn]

I don't get it either, however the really bad part of the interpretation part is yet to come when the ruling gives way to being retroactive.

The ruling being retroactive will have no effect on anything at all.

 

[Gunny]

Well they don't enforce it all, just interpret it. Yes the legislature writes it, but how they interpret it can change dramatically. You can do amazing things with the English language, and the language in most bills is pretty crappy and ambigious.

Alright...I just read the case. They didn't alter the law at all. There are mandatory minimums and then there are "sentencing guidelines". The sentence fell out of the guidelines, but was the minimum allowed by law. The court said this was reasonable.

As for it being beneficial to the US...I don't see how sentencing war veterans who have never been in jail before to 19 years in prison for selling over 5 grams of crack cocaine is beneficial to the US.

I don't see that being a military vet, war vet or no, is relevant to the sentence for the crime. Whether or not the individual has ever been in trouble with the law, as a consideration, should depend on the severity of the crime, IMO.

Crack dealers deal in death. IMO, 19 years doesn't seem to harsh a sentence for dealing the stuff.

 

[Larkinn]

I don't see that being a military vet, war vet or no, is relevant to the sentence for the crime. Whether or not the individual has ever been in trouble with the law, as a consideration, should depend on the severity of the crime, IMO.

Thats not how it works. We always take into account whether someone has committed crimes before. Recidivism matters and if someone keeps committing the same crime there is justification for keeping them in jail longer.

Crack dealers deal in death. IMO, 19 years doesn't seem to harsh a sentence for dealing the stuff.

*shrug* gun dealers deal in death as well. Anyway having incredibly harsh drug laws have just pushed prices a bit higher and filled our prisons to the maximum. Seems a damn silly way to do it to me. And really...if you are going to have the sentences that high for crack, they need to be that high for powder as well. That is just fucked that there is a 100:1 disparity between the two.

 

[Gunny]

Thats not how it works. We always take into account whether someone has committed crimes before. Recidivism matters and if someone keeps committing the same crime there is justification for keeping them in jail longer.



*shrug* gun dealers deal in death as well. Anyway having incredibly harsh drug laws have just pushed prices a bit higher and filled our prisons to the maximum. Seems a damn silly way to do it to me. And really...if you are going to have the sentences that high for crack, they need to be that high for powder as well. That is just fucked that there is a 100:1 disparity between the two.

Yes and no on recidivism. One only needs be caught for mass murder/serial killings once. But I will give you that it generally applies to lesser crimes.

Guns have functional purposes that do not necessarily include unlawful death. My understanding of crack is that it's highly addictive and serves no positive, functional purpose.

As far as the disparity, I think there should be a disparity based on the severity of the drug. I am not educated enough on the difference between powder and crack to comment on the specific disparity. If the disparity doees not exist between the forms of the drug, then I don't see a reason that a disparity should exist in the punishment for trafficking in them.

 

[Lookout]

WOW, did this ever get sidetracked. Allow me to connect the dots...
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2007/12/04/bush_to_sign_us-peru_free-trade_deal/7984/

Bush opens trade with peru.
Supreme court allows judges to give lighter sentences for Cocaine.
That could become retroactive allowing a few thousand to be released.

Yes crack dealers deal in death. That would just happen to be the federal government. The rich one percent.

Over 90% of the worlds opium comes from Afghanastan and heroin and opium are on the rise all over the world. Is it any surprise that this happened AFTER we invaded?

The same thing happened with Bush 1 in the 80's over a mid east arms deal and there was so much cocaine available that people couldn't give it away.

Like father, Like son.

 

[Larkinn]

Yes and no on recidivism. One only needs be caught for mass murder/serial killings once. But I will give you that it generally applies to lesser crimes.

Sure mass murder/serial killings, but that shit is rare. It is far more likely that someone does a serious crime, gets caught, does time and gets out and does it again. Also....this is the whole thing with people getting pissed at Huckabee paroling that guy. After all we should look at past actions and increase sentencing, right?

Guns have functional purposes that do not necessarily include unlawful death. My understanding of crack is that it's highly addictive and serves no positive, functional purpose.

Yes guns do have a functional purpose, as can any drug including Crack. Don't get me wrong its quite bad for you but most drugs you can do recreationally (I would say Heroin is a notable exception).

As far as the disparity, I think there should be a disparity based on the severity of the drug. I am not educated enough on the difference between powder and crack to comment on the specific disparity. If the disparity doees not exist between the forms of the drug, then I don't see a reason that a disparity should exist in the punishment for trafficking in them.

There isn't really. Its the same drug in different forms. Crack cocaine is usually cut with something and so is cheaper to make and on the street. Its primarily a black drug, while cocaine is primarily a white drug.