20 Million Marijuana Arrests and Counting...
That’s 20,000,000.
Chris Rock on Sarah Palin's Criminal Activities
For those of you who don't know what he's talking about.
Worst Use of Your Tax Dollars for a Federal Prosecution?
Prosecutorial discretion is immense. And it starts with the decision on whether someone should be prosecuted in the first place. Now submitted, for your approval, the stupidest prosecution yet, at least in terms of “your tax dollars at work”.
From the charging instrument filed last week (cause number 08-po-00237-MHW-1 for federal criminal defense lawyers with access to Pacer):
…the defendant… did willfully destroy, damage and remove Government property without authorization, namely by consuming soft drink beverage (sic) belonging to the Department of Veterans Affairs…
So the defendant had driven her dad to the VA to get medical care, took her refillable thermos into the lunch room and filled it up. She had been charged $1, $1.50 in the past but this time the clerk told her it was going to be $3.80.
After being told eventually by the manager that she was going to have pay the increased cost she unwisely poured the soft drink on the counter – presumably as a protest. By the way I’m not defending her actions; they are puerile at best. But criminal? As in don’t-make-a-federal-case-out-of-it criminal?
According to this federal prosecutor, yes! He charged her under 38 Code of Federal Regulations 1.218 Security and Law Enforcement at VA facilities. The quoted part above is from section (a)(3) and he threw in an (a)(5) charge of disturbance alleging that her conduct otherwise impeded or disrupted the performance of official duties by Government employees.
A buddy of mine asked me last week whether I thought the Feds could find something to prosecute me for if they set their mind to it. Well, not if I don’t leave the house…
[Hat Tip to Sentencing Law & Policy; original story]
Admitting You Smoked Marijuana and Immigration; A Question for Our Candidates
In February I went to an Obama Town Hall Meeting here in Austin and asked readers to send me their suggestions should I be picked to ask him a question. (I wasn’t – but thanks to those who commented and/or emailed.)
Now Windy Pundit has thrown down the gauntlet in a comment to my post about Ms. Palin’s attempts to criminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in Alaska – despite admitting that she enjoyed it herself in the past. WP wants to ask Ms. Palin:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection has refused entry to people who admitted smoking pot, even if they were never convicted of a crime. If you were president, is it alright if other countries don't let you visit for the same reason?
Good question. And indeed he’s correct.
Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act: Section 212 “General Classes of Aliens ineligible to receive Visas and ineligible for Admission” subsection (a)(2)(A) non-citizens are ineligible to be admitted to the United States on certain criminal related grounds. For example:
2) Criminal and related grounds.-
(A) Conviction of Certain Crimes
(i) In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-
(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime), or
(II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), is inadmissible.
There are exceptions for crimes of moral turpitude - such as shoplifting, misdemeanor assault - if the person seeking entry was under 18 at the time of the offense, or didn't receive a sentence of more than 6 months and the offense carried a amximum penalty of a year - but I don't see one for the controlled substance provision.
And the important to remember here is the phrase:
any alien… who admits having committed…a violation of… any law… relating to a controlled substance
That’s right folks. This is for admitting you smoked marijuana at any time in the past whether you were ever charged for it or not. Makes you ineligible for admission to the United States.
So, Ms. Palin… turnabout is fair play right? You’re OK with other countries refusing to let you visit because you told the local newspaper in 2006 that you had smoked marijuana at some point in your past?
Hypocrisy and Marijuana Policy
From Reason Online where Jacob Sullum asks, “Why should other Alaskans be arrested for something Sarah Palin once did with impunity?”
When it comes to questions about youthful marijuana use, Sarah Palin is no Slick Willie. "I can't claim a Bill Clinton and say that I never inhaled," the Republican vice presidential candidate told the Anchorage Daily News in 2006, before she was elected governor of Alaska…
[S]moking marijuana in the privacy of one's home is just as legal in Alaska today as it was when Palin did it. Evidently she regrets this situation.
As mayor of Wasilla in 2000, Palin championed a city council resolution opposing a ballot initiative that would have legalized marijuana for adults. Last March her administration asked the Alaska Supreme Court to reverse its 1975 decision shielding private marijuana use, arguing that the drug is more dangerous than it used to be.
In other words, Palin got to smoke pot without worrying about legal consequences and now wants to deny that assurance to fellow Alaskans doing exactly the same thing. "Palin doesn't support legalizing marijuana," the Anchorage Daily News reported in 2006, because she worries about "the message it would send to her four kids."
Some Good Ideas About Federal Sentencing
Thanks to Mark Bennett for posting a .pdf to the Texas defense lawyers listserv of the recent letter by the Federal Defenders concerning sentencing reform to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The email contained specific instructions that the .pdf was a public document and was meant to be disseminated, so here’s a link.
I haven’t finished all 70 pages of it yet, but here are some highlights for what the Commission should do:
- Reform the relevant conduct guideline;
- Narrow the career offender guideline to the extent possible within statutory limits and recommend to Congress that § 994(h) be repealed;
- Reassess and adjust the guidelines that are based on mandatory minimums, including the crack guidelines;
- Amend the guidelines to give the courts more flexibility to sensibly use alternatives to incarceration under the guidelines;
- Prepare an updated study of mandatory minimum laws;
- Eliminate the unwarranted disparity in mandatory minimums for crack and powder cocaine;
- Reduce the overall severity levels and the prison population;
- Increased focus on rehabilitation;
- Increase flexibility and simplicity.
Sounds reasonable to me.
So Everyone in Prison Deserves to Be There?
In the comments section of an Austin American Statesman story titled “Drugs, mental health and the justice system” a reader who identifies himself as a former probation officer wrote:
As a former Probation Officer I read this story with real interest. In seven (7) years on the job, I can't recall a single instance where an offender wasn't offered an alcohol and drug treatment screening.
In fact, most offenders were ordered to complete inpatient or outpatient treatment while on probation.
It is entirely untrue that prisons are filled with folks who were never offered drug treatment. The majority of that population are multiple offenders whom have had more than one (1) opportunity to complete a substance abuse program.
In other words they were offered the treatment that everyone agrees they should get. Then they ment on to commit more crimes and they ended up in prison. The Criminal Justice system has a larger responsibility to the law abiding citizen, than they do to the criminal.
Thankfully, if you read all the comments you can see that the jury pools in Austin are full of reasonable minded citizens who think that probation is – at worst – what folks caught possessing drugs should get, but as for the comment above, I’d ask a really simple question:
Do you think that as a probation officer – that is, someone who met only with offenders who had already been placed on probation – you might have only been exposed to those defendants who indeed did have treatment offered to (or forced upon) them?
