Angiulo: A Call to End Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Massachusetts Drug Cases
Monday, October 20, 2014
_360_360.png)
The four major topics presented by Chief Justice Gants all focus on the future role of judges and trial courts in communities. His proposals include offering civil dispute resolution models, similar to arbitration, that could be more economical and efficient. He also emphasized the importance of funding programs, like the court service centers in Greenfield and Boston, to help people without lawyers access the court system and the resources available to them. In addition, he spoke about working to improve the process people go through as jurors when being selected for trials as a way to secure fair and impartial trials.
The topic that has gotten the most press to date, however, was his call to end mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases. There are national organizations that both support reforms like this and oppose any modification of this nature. The social impact of these sentencing structures generally, and the racially disparate effect specifically, are well documented in various government and private research. Each individual should be encouraged to look at the issue on their own to decide whether they think mandatory minimums are effective. It might be helpful in that analysis to consider that Chief Justice Gants, an exceptionally well educated former federal prosecutor, has proposed returning full discretion in handing down punishment for drug crimes to trial judges.
It may be hard for people who are not law enforcement, lawyers or the family of an accused person to understand what this argument is really about. Take, as an example, the crime of trafficking in opiates. As many people may know, one of the major crises facing our society is opiate addiction. The forms this substance may take include heroin, but also pills. It is unfortunately common for users of such substances to slide quickly from recreational use into addiction and the destructive cycles that come with it. In some cases, a person will begin dealing or even just transporting for dealers in order to support their habit.
As the law reads now a hypothetical person charged with trafficking between eighteen and thirty six grams of heroin or opiate derivatives, such as pills, faces a minimum of three and one half years in state prison. This applies regardless of that person's employment history, addiction issues, or lack of criminal history. The crime also provides that a defendant could face as many as twenty years in prison for the same offense. If, for example, the case presented aggravating factors a trial judge could sentence the defendant up to that limit.
Advocacy to end mandatory minimum sentences is not a call to end incarceration for drug cases nor is it equivalent to ending punishment for violating drug laws. It is, instead, a way to help judges make punishments fit the facts of each case. If, for example, a defendant's personal history and the circumstances underlying a crime justify it, a period of probation with strict conditions may be appropriate. In some other cases, a term of incarceration less that what is currently required by the law might also be appropriate. The difficulty with presenting hypotheticals is that no two cases are the same because no two people are the same.
Similarly, the difficulty with mandatory minimums sentences in drug cases is that judges are not permitted to fully consider the individual facts of the case when ruling. We, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, have entrusted our judiciary with the power to impose the rule of law. Our legal principles give great deference to the discretionary acts of a judge sitting and listening to evidence. To end minimum mandatory sentences is, therefore, not a strike against the rule of law but is, instead, in furtherance of our system of justice.
Related Slideshow: New England States with Highest Marijuana Arrest Rates
Related Articles
- Leonardo Angiulo: Supreme Court Rules Raging Bull Lawsuit to Go Another Round in Federal Court
- Leonardo Angiulo: MA Criminal Justice Attorney Pay at Crisis Level
- Leonardo Angiulo: The Impact of Parole on Murder Sentences
- Leonardo Angiulo: How State Law Can Be Used To Promote Clean Energy
- Leonardo Angiulo: Combating the Effects of Heroin Addiction
- Leonardo Angiulo: US Incarceration Rate May be Unsustainable
- Leonard Angiulo: Evolving Status of Animals in the MA Legal System
- Leonardo Angiulo: A Good Day for FBI, A Bad Day for Politicians
- Leonardo Angiulo: When a Car Accident Isn’t Just an Accident
- Leonardo Angiulo: Freedom of Information in Action
- Leonardo Angiulo: Money in Politics
- Leonardo Angiulo: Victim Rights in Massachusetts
- Leonardo Angiulo: Spotlight on the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board
- Leonardo Angiulo: Mass. Appeals Court Explains Expert Testimony in Drug and Drunk Driving
- Leonardo Angiulo: Difficult Divorces Can Be Even More Expensive Than You Think
- Leonardo Angiulo: Expunging Criminal Records for Victims of Identity Theft
- Leonardo Angiulo: Citizens Recording Official Police Business
- Leonardo Angiulo: Dissecting the Proposed MA Firearm Legislation
- Leonardo Angiulo: Further Refining the Investigation of Marijuana Offenses
- Leonardo Angiulo: Changing the Standard for Sealing Criminal Records in MA
- Leonardo Angiulo: Mixing Politics with Supermarkets
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It