6/22: The Day after the day after the showdown
Ok, ok, so I missed the big shin-dig at the courthouse, with the poor guy who got shot by the police for hating anti-man child support laws. I'm glad I wasn't there though, I think seeing someone be shot would scar me for life.
On the job front, things are getting interesting. I went to court once already for a sentencing, and this friday I have two more; one in Tacoma in the morning and then back up to seattle for the afternoon. Yikes.
Plus, my appellate brief is being reviewed and will be submitted to the court on the 30th. Wow. As far as work, until yesterday it was all sentencing memos and briefs in teh field of guns and drugs, drugs and guns, guns and drugs. Is he or isn't he an Armed Career Criminal? Can we or can't we enhance his sentence because he used a gun in furtherance of the crime? All of a sudden I'm like an expert in the field of sentencing guidelines. Too bad I'm an expert in something I completely, totally, wholesale-ly disagree with. I don't mind enhancing sentences for people with guns, but I disagree with drug laws in general, and the harshness of the sentences specifically. In none of the cases I've worked on so far has anyone of the defendants actually harmed another person. Rather, they were growing medical marijuana, driving a car that had some meth and a gun in it, just being a bad dude hassled by the cops, who then find a gun on him..... and in each case, these people are looking at 5 years minimum. Somehow, it just seems wrong. Why does it seem wrong? Because, even though the people we prosecute federally are actually, truly bad people who have done some bad things in the past, I guess I'm just a believer in not punishing someone until they had actually done something wrong, and I think that wrong must equal harm to another person. Someone might say that selling drugs harms another person, but I disagree with that too. Drug use is a personal choice, and there will always be demand for things that will get you high. Thus, being a vendor of contraband isn't harming anyone who doesn't want to be harmed himself. So, what it all adds up to is what feels to me like unfair sentences for pseudo-crimes.
Stupid congress. I wonder, if the general electorate wasn't so incredibly stupid and easily duped, whether they'd realize that "being tough on crime" isn't tough on crime at all? "Hey, let's fill up the privately owned, but federally funded, pork-barrel prisons with a bunch of drug users who can then learn the intricacies of more complex crimes and become truly adept at things like identity theft and burglary!" Sweet. The worst part is that the dumb voters buy it wholesale. And then there's the DOJ ready to enforce all these dumb laws. I mean, seriously, remember the war on drugs and all those stiff penalties Congress imposed on all sorts of drug crimes? That was fun, and now we don't have drugs any more, right? Idiots.
Ok, that's all for now.
On the job front, things are getting interesting. I went to court once already for a sentencing, and this friday I have two more; one in Tacoma in the morning and then back up to seattle for the afternoon. Yikes.
Plus, my appellate brief is being reviewed and will be submitted to the court on the 30th. Wow. As far as work, until yesterday it was all sentencing memos and briefs in teh field of guns and drugs, drugs and guns, guns and drugs. Is he or isn't he an Armed Career Criminal? Can we or can't we enhance his sentence because he used a gun in furtherance of the crime? All of a sudden I'm like an expert in the field of sentencing guidelines. Too bad I'm an expert in something I completely, totally, wholesale-ly disagree with. I don't mind enhancing sentences for people with guns, but I disagree with drug laws in general, and the harshness of the sentences specifically. In none of the cases I've worked on so far has anyone of the defendants actually harmed another person. Rather, they were growing medical marijuana, driving a car that had some meth and a gun in it, just being a bad dude hassled by the cops, who then find a gun on him..... and in each case, these people are looking at 5 years minimum. Somehow, it just seems wrong. Why does it seem wrong? Because, even though the people we prosecute federally are actually, truly bad people who have done some bad things in the past, I guess I'm just a believer in not punishing someone until they had actually done something wrong, and I think that wrong must equal harm to another person. Someone might say that selling drugs harms another person, but I disagree with that too. Drug use is a personal choice, and there will always be demand for things that will get you high. Thus, being a vendor of contraband isn't harming anyone who doesn't want to be harmed himself. So, what it all adds up to is what feels to me like unfair sentences for pseudo-crimes.
Stupid congress. I wonder, if the general electorate wasn't so incredibly stupid and easily duped, whether they'd realize that "being tough on crime" isn't tough on crime at all? "Hey, let's fill up the privately owned, but federally funded, pork-barrel prisons with a bunch of drug users who can then learn the intricacies of more complex crimes and become truly adept at things like identity theft and burglary!" Sweet. The worst part is that the dumb voters buy it wholesale. And then there's the DOJ ready to enforce all these dumb laws. I mean, seriously, remember the war on drugs and all those stiff penalties Congress imposed on all sorts of drug crimes? That was fun, and now we don't have drugs any more, right? Idiots.
Ok, that's all for now.
posted by Jason Salvo at 6:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home