IL - Man gets life in prison for trying to sell 50 gm of cocaine

[Brefie]

i also keep in mind that not every dealer is also a addict. rehab means nothing if you are selling but not using.

And not everyone who uses is addicted. I am not entirely convinced that Lindsay Lohan, Brandon Davis and Britney needed to go to rehab. I knew plenty of rich kids who had the money to do a lot of coke. All they needed was someone to give them a swift kick up the butt.

Let him rot away in prison--he is a worthless member of society

Well, perhaps. I respect that it's your opinion, however, it's not really JUSTICE is it? What's 'just' about Lindsay Lohan serving just ONE day in prison after TWO DUI's. The potential fatalities are up there...

----------

BTW: Most drug dealers can afford the best attornies, including many street dealers. JMO.

Huh? I would think that most dealers are dealers because of their limited resources.

Are we sending the message that 50 grams of coke is worse than crimes against our women and children?! Obviously, our jurors and judges believe this is the case.

What is wrong with society?! The only people who are "winning" in this "war against drugs" are the people getting paid the big bucks to wage it!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Absolutely, could not agree more. I am certainly not defending a drug dealer, yet I absolutely would dispute that sentence.

Why is our sex offender's list so damn large? Because of the effed up system. You can be placed on there for 3 public urination offenses. CRAZY! Let's at least separate those who are bursting to go with no audience, and those who just like to get their bits out in public. And for the other end of the scale, just keep them locked up. I cannot tell you how many child molesters who have committed heinous crimes live by me - give me the guy with the cocaine anyday.

 

[nanandjim]

I think that drug pushers should have severe punishment. They may not use drugs themselves, but they are promoting use and addiction for personal monetary gain. There are many crimes associated with drug use, which this guy is promoting. Crimes include everything that you can think of--from burglary, robbery, assault, rape, torture, murder, arson and on and on. You also have kids getting hooked who drop out of school. This then starts another chain of events, which may include working at low level jobs to make a living or turning to crime or prostitution for money.

If we could eliminate the source, some of these crimes would be reduced or eliminated. I know that people will say that there will always be a demand. However, some kids feel pressured to try the stuff. Then, they get hooked. Many of the young runaways living on the streets are addicted to drugs and resort to hustling and prostitution for money to live and to buy more drugs.

I think that you can't compare sentences for one crime versus sentences for another. People who commit any type of crime--large or small--should be prepared to do the time if caught and convicted.

Finally, I agree that it is sad that many murderers and child molesters are receiving less harsh sentences. However, if you did the research, you probably would find that many murderers and child molesters were on drugs when they committed their crimes.

 

[JBean]

This is more about being a habitual felony drug offender.
It is similar to our 3 strikes law here in CA. If one has 2 strike felonies here in CA, any felony will put you in prison for 25 to life.
One man was sentenced to life for stealing 4 chocolate chip cookies, because he had prior burglary with weapons convictions.

So I am guessing this guy has met the criteria of a habitual drug offender and the life sentence is mandatory.
The idea is for it to serve as a deterrent to career criminals.

>>

It wasn't just the nearly 300 grams of crack cocaine attributed to Travis Davis, but the two prior drug convictions which made the life sentence mandatory under federal law. It's the third conviction and stiff sentence handed down as part of the federal government's Operation Engine 5-0, a joint state-federal effort to tackle drug sales in the Galesburg area, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Tate Chambers<<

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/090107/TRI_BE7VNFSL.064.php

 

[JBean]

CA 3 strikes law..I think this drug law in this case is a parallel:

III. How the Three Strikes Law is Applied

The three strikes law is triggered in the sentencing phase of a criminal action. The law gives a judge limited discretion in sentencing and makes a person who commits a third felony face a sentence of 25 years-to-life in prison if convicted.[13] This law also has a second strike provision raising the minimum sentence of a person who commits more than one felony, but the real teeth to this legislation is in the 25 year-to-life sentence for a third felony conviction.[14]
The controversy is that the law does not allow for discretion or any distinction between violent and nonviolent felonies. This is where nonviolent offenders who might have a third felony, such as a drug possession or a stolen piece of pizza will face a life sentence.[15] In California certain crimes such as petty theft, car theft, assault, commercial burglary, possession of a weapon, or possession of drugs can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony.[16] Based on the facts of the case, one has the possibility of getting a 25 years-to-life sentence for a simple bar fight, making the law ripe for controversy and the main area that opponents of this law want to see amended.

 

[angelmom]

Helpful info...my only question is when is stealing a piece of pizza a felony?

When you do it with a gun? Or when you also steal the cash out of the register? Or when you break into someplace to do it?

 

[JBean]

Helpful info...my only question is when is stealing a piece of pizza a felony?

When you do it with a gun? Or when you also steal the cash out of the register? Or when you break into someplace to do it?

I'll find the details for you in a second Angelmom.
But the point is this is about an offender that habitually breaks the law.
While some are comparing this to Lindsey Lohan and other stars, IMO that is apples and oranges, not the same level by any stretch.
I am not even in favor of our 3 strikes law as it is written, but people that continually break the law should be given stiffer penalties.

 

[JBean]

If you have prior felony burglary convictions, then stealing pizza can be charged as a felony. In this case he had a prior violent assault, so when he stole a piece of pizza from some kids, it could be charged as a felony even though it was not a violent crime.

Controversial results

Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California &#8212; the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, previous strikes for home burglary), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years). In one particularly notorious case, Kevin Weber was sentenced to 26 years to life for the crime of stealing four chocolate chip cookies (previous strikes of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law

 

[angelmom]

If you have prior felony burglary convictions, then stealing pizza can be charged as a felony.

Controversial results

Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California &#8212; the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, previous strikes for home burglary), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years). In one particularly notorious case, Kevin Weber was sentenced to 26 years to life for the crime of stealing four chocolate chip cookies (previous strikes of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law

YIKES! I would have never believed it!

Did the guy who took the pizza from the kids threaten them??? In which case, go right ahead and lock his ass up. ETA: I see he actually only served 3 years. Not so scary after all.

 

[JBean]

YIKES! I would have never believed it!

Did the guy who took the pizza from the kids threaten them??? In which case, go right ahead and lock his ass up. ETA: I see he actually only served 3 years. Not so scary after all.

I clarified it in my previous post, but no he didn't have to.
Since he had already been convicted of a violent assault, his petty theft of pizza could and was charged as a felony.
3 strikes.
Same with the choco chip cookie thief.
The new charges can dependent on their prior convictions.


ETA: just saw your ETA..there are plenty in for life under our 3 strikes law. It is a controversial issue here and is very scary,IMO.

 

[Brefie]

I'll find the details for you in a second Angelmom.
But the point is this is about an offender that habitually breaks the law.
While some are comparing this to Lindsey Lohan and other stars, IMO that is apples and oranges, not the same level by any stretch.
I am not even in favor of our 3 strikes law as it is written, but people that continually break the law should be given stiffer penalties.

'Some' would be me. I am using the comparison because another poster pointed out that this pusher could have sold drugs that killed someone. ANYONE convicted of a DUI could have killed someone EACH time they drove drunk.
I am also using the comparison because an average joe collecting 2 DUI's in 2 months would likely been given a harsher sentence. Therefore, it is easy to believe money can buy freedom.

 

[nanandjim]

'I am using the comparison because another poster pointed out that this pusher could have sold drugs that killed someone. ANYONE convicted of a DUI could have killed someone EACH time they drove drunk...

Selling drugs is illegal. Selling alcohol is not.

 

[Brefie]

Selling drugs is illegal. Selling alcohol is not.

I don't get the point.

MY point was about driving under the influence, not the sale of alcohol.

 

[nanandjim]

I don't get the point.

MY point was about driving under the influence, not the sale of alcohol.

You mixed two different scenarios, as I understood it. You mixed someone saying that the drugs that someone sold "could" have caused the drug user to commit a crime. Then, you said that a person driving drunk could have committed a crime. Shouldn't you have been comparing the person selling drugs with the person selling alcohol and then comparing the person using the drugs with the person using the alcohol?

The person selling the drugs is committing a crime regardless if the buyer commits a crime or not. The person selling the alcohol is not committing a crime. The buyer of the alcohol commits a crime if he drives drunk and also if he kills someone while doing so.

Bottom line: I guess that I don't understand your comparison. :waitasec:

 

[JBean]

'Some' would be me. I am using the comparison because another poster pointed out that this pusher could have sold drugs that killed someone. ANYONE convicted of a DUI could have killed someone EACH time they drove drunk.
I am also using the comparison because an average joe collecting 2 DUI's in 2 months would likely been given a harsher sentence. Therefore, it is easy to believe money can buy freedom.

Money can buy a better lawyer no doubt about it. But I still don't think the celebs got anything much different than most people in LA County.
As it relates to this case,I still don't see the comparison for either issue you reference. Misdemeanors v felonies and nonstrike felonies v strike felonies. Just not in the same league.
This is about habitual felony offenses not necessarily the crime being sentenced for. This guy got the book thrown at him because he had two other serious drug felony charges.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

As long as I can remember...there has been an all out effort to stop the sale of drugs in this country to the tune of trillions of dollars. (The Lawyers, Doctors, hospitals, and other government agencies are raking it in!) Obviously, this not working! Until our government realizes the only way to combat the problem is to legalize drugs so they can control them...we are going to be faced with crimes from the root cause of illegal drugs. Period.

Gangs kill for drugs. Cartels kill for drugs. Joe Blow on the street will rob you and kill you...for drugs. Yet, our government hasn't figured out the problem is much the same as it was during prohibition with alcohol. Once they took control over the sale of alcohol, it was no longer a "bootleg" society and it prevented this illicit element from captilizing on it so heavily.

As a whole, we are never going to "win" this war until we level the playing field. We have drug dealers because there is a supply and demand for them. We are not going to change this fact by putting everyone in jail and spending taxpayer's money to continually house them, feed them, and keep them from the public. They keep selling drugs on the streets while they are sitting in jail!

The problem is society. Try throwing the gangbangers in jail who have no regard for life at all...can't because no one will testify against them! Try getting to the drug cartels to destroy them...can't because their money hides them! This is the society we have created.

Our system is flawed and we need to fix it. Lawyers have designed our legal system to fail. The laws enacted have made it impossible to receive a fair trial, to dole out a fair sentence, and to put the people behind bars for life who truly deserve it. Criminals have far more rights today than victims.

 

[JBean]

As long as I can remember...there has been an all out effort to stop the sale of drugs in this country to the tune of trillions of dollars. (The Lawyers, Doctors, hospitals, and other government agencies are raking it in!) Obviously, this not working! Until our government realizes the only way to combat the problem is to legalize drugs so they can control them...we are going to be faced with crimes from the root cause of illegal drugs. Period.

Gangs kill for drugs. Cartels kill for drugs. Joe Blow on the street will rob you and kill you...for drugs. Yet, our government hasn't figured out the problem is much the same as it was during prohibition with alcohol. Once they took control over the sale of alcohol, it was no longer a "bootleg" society and it prevented this illicit element from captilizing on it so heavily.

As a whole, we are never going to "win" this war until we level the playing field. We have drug dealers because there is a supply and demand for them. We are not going to change this fact by putting everyone in jail and spending taxpayer's money to continually house them, feed them, and keep them from the public. They keep selling drugs on the streets while they are sitting in jail!

The problem is society. Try throwing the gangbangers in jail who have no regard for life at all...can't because no one will testify against them! Try getting to the drug cartels to destroy them...can't because their money hides them! This is the society we have created.

Our system is flawed and we need to fix it. Lawyers have designed our legal system to fail. The laws enacted have made it impossible to receive a fair trial, to dole out a fair sentence, and to put the people behind bars for life who truly deserve it. Criminals have far more rights today than victims.

You want to legalize crack cocaine for recreational use?

 

[Brefie]

You mixed two different scenarios, as I understood it. You mixed someone saying that the drugs that someone sold "could" have caused the drug user to commit a crime. Then, you said that a person driving drunk could have committed a crime. Shouldn't you have been comparing the person selling drugs with the person selling alcohol and then comparing the person using the drugs with the person using the alcohol?

The person selling the drugs is committing a crime regardless if the buyer commits a crime or not. The person selling the alcohol is not committing a crime. The buyer of the alcohol commits a crime if he drives drunk and also if he kills someone while doing so.

Bottom line: I guess that I don't understand your comparison. :waitasec:

I made the likeness of someone selling a drug (crime) that MIGHT kill someone and someone driving under the influence (crime) that also MIGHT kill someone.
It's getting confusing...I still thinks it's too harsh a sentence.

 

[southcitymom]

As long as I can remember...there has been an all out effort to stop the sale of drugs in this country to the tune of trillions of dollars. (The Lawyers, Doctors, hospitals, and other government agencies are raking it in!) Obviously, this not working! Until our government realizes the only way to combat the problem is to legalize drugs so they can control them...we are going to be faced with crimes from the root cause of illegal drugs. Period.

Gangs kill for drugs. Cartels kill for drugs. Joe Blow on the street will rob you and kill you...for drugs. Yet, our government hasn't figured out the problem is much the same as it was during prohibition with alcohol. Once they took control over the sale of alcohol, it was no longer a "bootleg" society and it prevented this illicit element from captilizing on it so heavily.

As a whole, we are never going to "win" this war until we level the playing field. We have drug dealers because there is a supply and demand for them. We are not going to change this fact by putting everyone in jail and spending taxpayer's money to continually house them, feed them, and keep them from the public. They keep selling drugs on the streets while they are sitting in jail!

The problem is society. Try throwing the gangbangers in jail who have no regard for life at all...can't because no one will testify against them! Try getting to the drug cartels to destroy them...can't because their money hides them! This is the society we have created.

Our system is flawed and we need to fix it. Lawyers have designed our legal system to fail. The laws enacted have made it impossible to receive a fair trial, to dole out a fair sentence, and to put the people behind bars for life who truly deserve it. Criminals have far more rights today than victims.

I agree with you 100&#37; that the "War on Drugs" (insert icon for falling on the floor, rolling around, laughing my a$$ off here) is the most expensive smoke and mirrors joke in the history of the United States. Dismal, flawed, foolish on so many levels.

And make no mistake that we pay with our lives while our leaders pretend they have the slightest handle on any of it.

Why does our government allow men on streets with guns to control the flow of narcotic substances? Yes, the playing field must be leveled if we are to stand a chance. We will never get rid of drug abuse - since the beginning of time, mankind has sought and found ways to escape its earthbound miseries. But, we could lessen the effects of this Planet Earth reality by growing a brain and trying something different.

It might sound scary to consider decriminalizing crack and heroin use and putting its distribution in the hands of government, but I submit that doing so couldn't possibly lead us to a darker place than we are in right now.

I'm surely not wise enough to have all the answers, but I'm smart enough to see what's not working and open enough to consider some real (as opposed to make-believe, which is what we have going on now) strategies.

 

[Brefie]

I agree with you 100% that the "War on Drugs" (insert icon for falling on the floor, rolling around, laughing my a$$ off here) is the most expensive smoke and mirrors joke in the history of the United States. Dismal, flawed, foolish on so many levels.

And make no mistake that we pay with our lives while our leaders pretend they have the slightest handle on any of it.

Why does our government allow men on streets with guns to control the flow of narcotic substances? Yes, the playing field must be leveled if we are to stand a chance. We will never get rid of drug abuse - since the beginning of time, mankind has sought and found ways to escape its earthbound miseries. But, we could lessen the effects of this Planet Earth reality by growing a brain and trying something different.

It might sound scary to consider decriminalizing crack and heroin use and putting its distribution in the hands of government, but I submit that doing so couldn't possibly lead us to a darker place than we are in right now.

I'm surely not wise enough to have all the answers, but I'm smart enough to see what's not working and open enough to consider some real (as opposed to make-believe, which is what we have going on now) strategies.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

EXCELLENT post!
Well said!

 

[JBean]

I made the likeness of someone selling a drug (crime) that MIGHT kill someone and someone driving under the influence (crime) that also MIGHT kill someone.
It's getting confusing...I still thinks it's too harsh a sentence.

I agree with you Brefie. I also think it is too harsh of a sentence. I do not support our 3 strikes law as written here in CA. I have voted against it consistently.
The only thing I am trying to explain is the rationale behind the sentence. It is about trying to throw the book at serial, felony criminals. We are always upset when a serial rapist is released and able to commit his crime over and over. here in CA, he would get life on his third felony whether it was for rape or stealing a loaf of bread. Sort of a zero tolerance. Some applications of the law sound pretty good and some do not.
That is what this drug law is about. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with it, I am only trying to explain it.
Now whether the crimes rise to the level of each of our personal notions of felony or criminal is a separate issue entirely.