Federal drug laws develop a labeling problem. When you hear the term "drug trafficker," you may think about Pablo Escobar or Walter White, but the reality is that under federal law, drug traffickers consist of people who purchase pseudo-ephedrine for their methamphetamine dealer; act as intermediary in a series of small deals; and even pick up a luggage for the wrong good friend. Thanks to conspiracy laws, everyone on the totem pole can be subject to the exact same severe compulsory minimum sentences.
To the men and ladies who drafted our federal drug laws in 1986, this may come as a surprise. According to Sen. Robert Byrd, cosponsor of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the reason to connect five- and ten-year compulsory sentences to drug trafficking was to punish "the kingpins-- the masterminds who are really running these operations", and the mid-level dealerships.
Fast forward twenty-five years. Today, practically everybody convicted of a federal drug criminal activity is convicted of "drug trafficking", which more often than not leads to at least a 5- or ten-year mandatory jail sentence. That's a lot of time in federal jail for many people who are minor parts of drug trade, the huge majority of whom are males and females of color.
This is the system that federal district Judge Mark Bennett sees every day. Judge Bennett sits on the district court in northern Iowa, and he manages a lot of drug cases. "Never ever could I have actually imagined," he writes in a current piece in The Nation, "that ... after nineteen years [as a federal district court judge], I would have sent out 1,092 of my fellow citizens to federal prison for necessary minimum sentences ranging from sixty months to life without the possibility of release. Most of these women, guys and young adults are nonviolent drug user." What about the kingpins? "I can count them on one hand," he says.
The numbers can't convey the unreasonable disaster of all of it. This is how he describes a current drug trafficking case:
I just recently sentenced a group of more than twenty accused on meth trafficking conspiracy charges. All of them plead guilty. Eighteen were 'pill smurfers,' as federal district attorneys put it, meaning their role totaled up to routinely purchasing and delivering cold medication to meth cookers in exchange for very little, low-grade quantities to feed their severe dependencies. Most were unemployed or underemployed. Several were single mothers. They did not sell or straight distribute meth; there were no hoards of money, guns or counter surveillance devices. Yet all of them faced compulsory minimum sentences of sixty or 120 months.
There is information to recommend that Judge Bennett's experience is not uncharacteristic. In 2007, the U.S. Sentencing Commission compiled considerable information on cocaine and fracture sentencing. They discovered that in 2005, the majority of the lowest-level cocaine- and crack-trafficking offenders-- men and women described as "street-level dealerships", "couriers/mules", and "renter/loader/lookout/ enabler/users"-- received five- or ten-year compulsory jail sentences. This is specifically true for crack-cocaine accused, the majority of whom are black; despite the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, selling a small quantity of fracture drug (28 grams) brings the same necessary minimum sentence-- 5 years-- as offering 500 grams of powder cocaine.
This is the reality for which proponents of serious federal drug laws should account. We should confess that our sentencing of small participants in the drug trade to prison terms meant for the leaders of large drug organizations-- as a typical incident, not as an exception.
If prolonged compulsory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug addicts in fact worked, one may be able to justify them. I have seen how they leave hundreds of thousands of young children parent less and thousands of aging, infirm and dying parents childless.
Here, once again, we have proof that Judge Bennett is right: long compulsory sentences are unnecessary for most drug culprits. In 2002 and 2003, Michigan and New York City reversed necessary sentences for drug transgressors and provided judges the power to enforce shorter sentences, probation, or drug treatment. The sky didn't fall, but crime rates did. Did prison expenses.
He has seen obligatory laws written for the most major, massive drug dealers applied to the males and women on https://www.criminallawyerslasvegas.com/drug-conspiracy-defense-las-vegas/ the lowest rungs of the drug trade, and he has actually seen it take place a lot. We as soon as pictured that serious obligatory sentences would be utilized to deal with the leaders of large drug operations.
If you have been charged with a drug related offense and need qualified representation, contact us to discuss your case.
Contact:
Mace Yampolsky & Associates
625 S 6th St.
Las Vegas, NV 89101
(702) 385-9777