That's the message of this excellent op-ed from FAMM President Julie Stewart in The Washington Times, providing FAMM's take on the case of ex-Marine Ryan Jerome, who faces a possible 3.5-year mandatory minimum despite his good-faith efforts to follow New York's gun laws.
The op-ed points out one of the ironic aspects of Congress's creation of mandatory minimums: often, when one of these laws (which they created) is used in a way Congress doesn't approve of, it's the prosecutor who gets a tongue-lashing at an investigation, and the president who has to intervene with a commutation to save the day. But why rely on mandatory minimums, prosecutors, and presidents when Congress could simply restore to judges the power to get it right in every imaginable (and unimaginable) case? Writes Julie:
In many ways, the Jerome case reminds me of the prosecution of U.S. border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. They were sentenced in 2006 to more than a decade in prison after a jury found them guilty of shooting an unarmed illegal immigrant and covering it up. The agents’ long sentences were required by a federal mandatory minimum sentencing law. Nevertheless, members of Congress hauled the prosecutor who tried the case to Washington for a grilling. They couldn’t believe he had the audacity to use the law they had written. Seeing that the judge had no discretion, many members of Congress then asked President George W. Bush to intervene, which he ultimately did by commuting the agents’ sentences. ...
Ramos and Compean were relatively lucky. Perhaps Mr. Jerome will get lucky, too, and the Manhattan D.A. will find some way to resolve the case without Mr. Jerome going to jail. But it’s not reasonable to expect that presidents and governors are going to be able (or willing) to save every unforeseen defendant from being saddled with an ill-fitting mandatory sentence. The only way to make sure that the time fits the crime is to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences and let judges consider all the relevant factors in crafting individualized sentences.Hear, hear!
Posts
3 Comments:
As a mentor of a young women, mother of 5 who was a pill addict, mandatory minimum of 25 years in mortifying.
6 lives don't stand a chance.
She has served 5 years and is corrected, rehabilitated, remorseful and born again.
She has 20 years to go. Her first and only offense. Non violent offense.
She was a pill addict.
Why, WHY can't she get a break?
my son had 27 pills in his pocket in his yard they gave him 15yrs you people let 2 child molesters go with 3 yrs in front of him there is something wrong with this system cant you see that he has been there for 5 already does his babys deserve that seems to me the child molesters should still be there not him, but there out...we need help !!!
My husband was facing 25 yrs man min for pills he just recvd from the doc... Prior to 30 days. Not being able to afford proper counsel he plead out to 5 yrs. These are the options... Take a chance on a trial where you may or may not do many years under a man. Min. Or plead out in fear. Then go to jail where you are offered these same drugs daily. How is that justice for a drug addict?
Post a Comment