HaCKeRz KrOnIcKLeZ 3/HaCKeRz_KrOnIcKLeZ.iso/drugs/hr957

Internet Message Format | 1996-05-06 | 16KB

From [e-mail] Sun Jun 27 10:27:00 1993
Date: 27 Jun 1993 13:30:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sol Lightman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info wanted on HR 957
To: [e-mail] (Brian Behlendorf)


This (following) is all the info I have on-line.  Basically, HR 957 Repeals the
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing rules & guidelines now in effect.  If you
want the actual text of the bill,  it was introduced by Sen. Don Edwards, CA.

Brian
-----



Yesterday at our last general meeting of the semester, Nancy Brown,
the New England coordinator for Families Against Mandatory Minimums,
spoke as a guest.  Some of the things she had to say appalled me.

She began her speech by rattling off a list of sentences delivered
under the Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Guidelines now in effect in this
country.  The list was just the tip of an iceburg, but even so, it
contained several sentences which could only be described as utterly
insane.

For those of you who are unaware of what Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
is all about, I will breifly describe to you this system.

I have sitting on my desk a chart which Mrs. Brown gave me, along
with other materials.  On one axis is the severity of a criminal
offense.  On the other are what can be best thought of as the opposite
of `brownie points' called Criminal History Points.

When a person is convicted of a crime in this country, their
criminal history is examined and they are given criminal history
points according to guidelines set forth by the federal government.
Their offense is also assigned a severity rating by another set
of guidelines.

A judge, when determining that person's sentence, does not need
to use his own discretion, he just looks up the sentence on the
chart and off they go to prison.  In fact, the judge is not
allowed to adjust the sentence on the chart ... downward.

Exceptions to this rule are afforded for the following reasons:

1) The defendant ratted out somebody else
2) The defendent must be hospitalized, or in-house detention
   is deemed adequate for this case (i.e. a handicapped person)

The entire attached document, which describes the Criminal
History Point system is cleverly written to discourage the very
thought of reduced sentences.  100% of the examples given which
describe a situation where the sentences may be altered, describe
an increase in the sentence.

So what happens when a person is convicted of an offense which
requires, say, a ten year sentence, and they only deserve, say,
two?  They get ten.  Period.  End of case.

Now the system which I have described seems very logical at first
glance -- applying a uniform sentence based on history and severity
of offense -- which is probably why it has been in effect for so
long.  But let us take a look at what has happenned during that
period.

I was also supplied with the following statistics.

o  The US now has the highest incarceration rate in the ENTIRE WORLD.
   425/100,000.  Only the former Soviet Union and S. Africa come close.
o  From 1975 to 1990, the US prison population has more than quadrupled
   We now imprison people at a rate 4 times that of most European
   countries, with no noticeable effect on the crime rate.
o  The US now has 1.2 million people in jail or prison.  In order
   to provide for our weekly influx of 2000 prisoners, we would
   have to build 4 new prisons a week, that's $2billion/month
o  The cost to maintain our current prison population is $16 billion
   a year.  Each prisoner costs $20,000 per year.
o  Corrections is the fastest growing public sector employment.
o  One out of every four African American males are in custody
   on any given day.  This compares to 1 out of 16 for South Africa.
o  If we continue our present rate of prison population increase,
   1/2 of our population will be in prison by 2053.

It is plain to me that this constitutes a problem.

Attorney General Janet Reno has called for a reveiw of these guidelines.

If you would like to express your support for reformation of
these guidelines and/or current drug laws and drug sentencing,
the phone number of her office is:

Office of Attorney General Janet Reno:  202-514-2000

And her address is:

        Janet Reno
        Dept. of Justice
        Constitution ave & 10th st
        Washington DC 20530


The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee is Charles Schumes.
If you would like to express your thoughts to his office,
call Cheif Council Paul Beaulier (BOWL-LERR) at 202-226-2406.

There is currently a bill in the Congress to reform the
Sentencing Guidelines.  The Edwards Bill, introduced by
Representative Don Edwards, is bill HR957.  It would remove
mandatory minimum sentencing from the federal law books.

The following members of the Judiciary Committee are not
sympathetic to the Edwards bill.  It would probably be in
your best interests to inundate them with mail.

Rep. Charles Schumer
2412 Rayburn Office Bldg.  Washington D.C. 20515
1628 Kings Highway Brooklyn N.Y. 11229

Rep. John Conyers Jr.
2426 Rayburn Office Bldg.  Washington D.C. 20515-2201
Federal Bldg. Rm. 669  231 W. Lafayette Detroit MI 48226

Rep. George W. Gekas
1519 Longworth Office Bldg.  Washington D.C. 20515-3817

Rep. Dan Glickman
2311 Rayburn Office Bldg.  Washington D.C. 20515-1604
Room 134  401 N. Market St. Wichita KS 67201

Rep. Romano L. Mazzoli
2246 Rayburn Office Bldg.  Washington D.C. 20515-1703
Federal Bldg. Rm. 551
   600 Martin Luther King Pl. Louisville KY 40202-22

Rep. Jim Ramstad
504 Cannon Office Bldg.  Washington D.C. 20545-2306
8120 Pennsylvania Ave. So. Suite 152 Bloomington MN 55431

Rep. George E. Sangmeister
1032 Longworth Office Bldg.  Washington D.C. 20515-1304
101 N. Joliet St.  Joliet IL 60431

Rep. Steven H. Schiff
1427 Longworth Office Bldg.  Washington D.C. 20515-3101
625 Silver Ave.  SW Suite 140 Albequerque NM 87102

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner Jr.
2444 Rayburn Office Bldg.  Washington D.C. 20515-4909
120 Bishops Way   Brookfield WI  53005

Rep. Lamar Smith
422 Cannon Office Bldg.  Washington D.C. 20515-4321
10010 San Pedro Ave.  Suite 530 San Antonio TX  78216


Several federal circuit judges are refusing to hear drug cases
in protest of the drug laws/mandatory sentencing.

In addition, one judge, Hon. Whitman Knapp of Manhattan, has actually
defied the mandatory minimum guidelines by delivering a reduced
sentence.  Several Congressmen are right now making motions to
impeach him.

Please educate yourselves about these events and write to your
local newpapers and other periodicals in support of these brave
stands, and the above proposed legislation.


Two groups you should consider joining are:

Families Against Mandatory Minimums
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200 South
Washington D.C. 20004
(I have addresses of the local branches.)


Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants
P.O. Box 2310
Washington, D.C. 20013-2310
202-842-1650  Ext. 320

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Justice Mocked; The farce of mandatory minimum sentences.
By Colman McCarthy

A year ago Patricia Martorana, a 20-year-old woman I came to know and
admire when she had been a gifted student leader at Vero Beach (Fla.)
High School, was attending Valencia Community College in Orlando. She
waited tables to earn tuition money. Her career plans included earning a
degree to work for the Florida forestry department as a wildlife
conservationist.

Today Martorana is caged in a federal prison in Marianna, Fla. She is
three months into a two-year sentence after plea bargaining to a charge
of conspiracy to distribute LSD.

I doubt if any member of Congress had Patricia Martorana or citizens
like her in mind when the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act was passed.
Amendments that were a pitched response to get tough on drug offenders
set mandatory minimum sentences. Judges were left with no sentencing
options. The congressional intent was to cast a judicial net so wide and
tight that, at last, drug lords and kingpins would be snared and given
the stiff punishment they deserved. And members of Congress could
champion themselves as winning the war on drugs.

They're winning all right - small. Patricia Martorana, whose case is not
unusual, according to legislative and judicial groups that monitor the
effects of mandatory minimums, was a nonviolent first offender. She did
not deal, buy, sell or use drugs. Her "conspiracy" to distribute LSD, as
detailed in the plea agreement with a federal prosecutor, was marginal
and fleeting at best.

Last May, Martorana was phoned at home by an undercover agent posing as
a buyer. He had been given her number by a high school friend of
Martorana. The agent, along with a government informant who was
cooperating to have time cut from his sentence from an earlier drug
crime, was directed by Martorana to someone she knew at work who was a
dealer. The agent paid him $1,340 for 1,000 dosage units of LSD.

Martorana was given $100 as a commission by her co-worker. In a stakeout
of the young woman's apartment, surveillance agents learned it was there
that the dealer transferred the LSD to Martorana's high school friend,
who then sold it to the undercover agent outside.

For this role in a relatively minor drug deal set up by legal
entrapment, and in a state teeming with violent and huge drug rings, a
young college student is now a federal prisoner. When Martorana was
sentenced in early November, a family member recalls, the judge
expressed a sentiment of frustration routinely heard from the bench: the
mandatory minimum sentencing law gave him no choice but imprisoning the
student for two years. He was forbidden to consider that this was a
nonviolent first offense or that Martorana's participation was small or
that her mother recently died of cancer and her father is disabled.
Probation, community service or counseling was out.

On Feb. 17, Rep. Don Edwards (D-Calif.) introduced legislation calling
for an end to mandatory minimums. He was responding to the increasing
opposition to the restriction from the American Bar Association, judges
in all 12 judicial circuits and the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Occasionally a jurist can no longer take it. In late 1990, a
Reagan-appointed federal judge in San Diego resigned because of
mandatory minimums: "They have destroyed the discretion of judges," J.
Lawrence Irving said. "They are grossly unfair to the litigants. For the
most part the sentences are excessive, particularly for first-time
offenders."

It works the other way, too, as in "guideline sentences." This is a
process by which drug kingpins can bargain for lower sentences if they
cooperate with prosecutors by fingering others in the ring. A mandatory
sentence can be avoided by naming names. "The moral of this story," says
Julie Stewart, director of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a
Washington advocacy group, "is that if you're going to get caught on a
drug charge, be a kingpin. You can talk and get off lightly. It also
means that those who have little or no information to bargain with get
the hardest hit. They're the least guilty."

FAMM's files bulge with cases of citizens serving drug sentences of 5,
10 and 20 years without parole chances for first and often minor
offenses.

Inside her Florida prison, Patricia Martorana sees the injustice up
close: "There are women here serving 10 to 15 years on charges of drug
conspiracy. They are doing more time than some murderers. I would say
that over 50 percent of the women here are first offenders."

All are doing hard time, compliments of a simplistic law passed -  and
kept on the books - by an unthinking Congress. In addition to
brutalizing the lives of people like Patricia Martorana, justice itself
is mocked. Forced to obey mandatory minimums, judges can't judge. They
can only process, stamping defendants as they pass by like slabs of meat
on a judicial conveyor belt. If the 1986 law has had a measurable effect
on drug deals, it's news to the judges.






--
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst                |  _________,^-.
Cannabis Reform Coalition                               ( | )           ,>
S.A.O. Box #2                                            \|/           {
415 Student Union Building                              `-^-'           ?     )
UMASS, Amherst MA 01003      [e-mail]  |____________  `--~ ;
                                                                       \_,-__/
* To find out about our on-line library, mail me a message with the
* pattern "{{{readme}}}" contained IN THE SUBJECT LINE.
* You will be mailed instructions; your message will be otherwise ignored

From [e-mail] Mon Jun 28 17:58:20 1993
Received: from hp.com by soda.berkeley.edu (5.65/KAOS-1)
    id AA22663; Mon, 28 Jun 93 17:58:19 -0700
Received: from hpsid.sid.hp.com by hp.com with SMTP
    (16.8/15.5+IOS 3.13) id AA25166; Mon, 28 Jun 93 18:01:55 -0700
Received: from hpldsi7.sid.hp.com by hpsid.sid.hp.com with SMTP
    (16.6/15.5+IOS 3.21+OM) id AA18204; Mon, 28 Jun 93 18:01:54 -0700
Received: from hpldsi7.sid.hp.com by hpldsi7.sid.hp.com with SMTP
    (1.37.109.4/15.5+IOS 3.22) id AA28885; Mon, 28 Jun 93 18:03:28 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] (Brian Behlendorf)
Subject: Re: HR 957
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Jun 93 11:48:38 PDT."
             <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 93 18:03:27 -0700
From: Philip Chang <[e-mail]>
Status: OR


Here's the information that I pulled out on bill H.R 957
from locis.loc.gov,  which is the Library of Congress Information System on
bill H.R 957.  I thought you might be interested in it.


Philip
-------
H.R.957                                                         (C103) 02/17/93
Rep Edwards, D., (Cosp=25)                                      House Judiciary

                             ALL OPTIONS         ITEM 1 OF 1 IN SET 1
OFFICIAL TITLE(S):
AS INTRODUCED:                                    (DATA FURNISHED BY THE HOUSE)
A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, and other provisions of  law,  to
make them consistent with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.

SHORT TITLE(S):
AS INTRODUCED:
   Sentencing Uniformity Act of 1993

COMMITTEE(S) OF REFERRAL:
House Judiciary

SUBCOMMITTEE(S) OF REFERRAL:
Hsc Crime and Criminal Justice

DETAILED STATUS STEPS:
                                *HOUSE ACTIONS*
Feb 17, 93  Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Mar  2, 93  Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice.

DIGEST AS INTRODUCED:
    Sentencing Uniformity Act of 1993 - Amends the Federal  criminal  code  and
various other Federal laws to abolish mandatory minimum sentences.

COSPONSOR                                   COSPONSORED ON         WITHDRAWN ON
Rep Clay                                       05/12/93
Rep Unsoeld                                    05/12/93
Rep Towns                                      05/12/93
Rep Dellums                                    05/12/93
Rep DeFazio                                    05/12/93
Rep Hastings                                   05/12/93
Rep Serrano                                    05/12/93
Rep McDermott                                  05/12/93
Rep Sabo                                       05/12/93
Rep Mink                                       05/12/93
Rep Conyers                                    05/12/93
Rep Murphy                                     05/12/93
Rep Watt                                       05/12/93
Rep Flake                                      05/12/93
Rep Rangel                                     05/12/93
Rep Kopetski                                   05/12/93
Rep Lewis, John                                05/12/93
Rep Hinchey                                    05/12/93
Rep Synar                                      05/12/93
Rep Hamburg                                    06/24/93
Rep Hilliard                                   06/24/93
Rep Schroeder                                  06/24/93
Rep Jefferson                                  06/24/93
Rep Swift                                      06/24/93
Rep Jacobs                                     06/24/93