Monday, November 15, 2010

Judge Weinstein vs. Mandatory Minimums

It's gotta be tough to be a judge.  Especially when mandatory minimum laws require you to give people sentences that don't fit or aren't deserved.  Judge Jack Weinstein, a federal judge in New York, isn't just giving in to these unfair laws.  He's fighting them.  This piece at The Atlantic pays tribute to Judge Weinstein and raises all the right questions about child porn laws and tough penalties:

New York federal District Court Judge Jack Weinstein isn’t a fan of mandatory minimum sentences. As Congress ratchets up penalties for certain crimes, prison sentences have doubled, then doubled again, in the past decade, often for reasons more political than penological. Judges stripped of discretion can either rubber-stamp what they see as harsh sentences, or find ways to impose lower penalties, inviting accusations that they are legislating from the bench.
Weinstein so opposes mandatory minimum drug sentences that for a time he refused to handle minor drug cases. More recently, he’s stirred up controversy by taking the same stance with respect to collectors of child pornography. In a case this year involving a New York man with a huge collection of kiddie porn, Weinstein has repeatedly refused to impose the minimum five-year prison sentence. He’s already tossed out two convictions in the case and says jurors have a right to be told of the disproportionate punishment before they render a guilty verdict. As Weinstein explained toThe New York Times, he doesn’t believe in “destroying lives unnecessarily” over a crime that harms nobody.
But does it harm nobody? Weinstein’s critics argue that merely “viewing” child porn does real harm to kids by perpetuating a $3 billion annual market. The Justice Department estimates that in creating their product, child pornographers have abused 1 million kids in the United States. And some studies suggest that between 30 and 50 percent of viewers of child porn also molest a child.
Weinstein says these people need treatment and supervision, not years in prison. And that puts him in the middle of several epic fights: between justice and mercy; between legislators and judges; and, ultimately, between what we know least and what we fear most.

2 Comments:

Anonymous said...

In regaurds to the studeis that show 30 to 50 % of the viewers actually causing harm to children, what about the other 70 to 50 % of the people who dont? i am not saying we should give them a chance to hurt anyone, but is it right to place the individuals who havent hurt anyone in jail? If thats the case we should lock up everyone who watches violent movies or plays violent video games. you cant lock up peole on the assumption that they may do something one day. These people need help, and i am not so sure jail is going to fix anything it is only a temporary fix and then they are relased back into society. These laws have not been though out, and they are way to broad. They need to put away the people who make and distribute these images. Putting away viewers who have no victims or have not endangered anyone is not the answer.

Anonymous said...

I am a college student majoring in substance abuse counseling and the judge is right. You want to lock these folks up but what then? You need to treat the illness not lock them up because they are a problem. If you don't treat them and you eventually set them free. That's just like having a mental patient and you confine them but you don't treat them for their problem.Makes you wonder just how many people are there incarcerated have a mental illness or substance abuse problem.Are they getting treated for their whats ailing them or are they being confined because you think that they are just a problem?