http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=143
| We've all heard occasional news stories about how some of the drug laws enacted in the last 15 years may have gone too far. First time offenders get locked up for decades. Judges -- even Republican appointees -- say that mandatory minimum sentences prevent them from making fair rulings. But have sentences really gone too far? This hour examines the areas where a consensus is growing on the problems in federal drug laws, and it explains the areas where drug laws seem to be administered fairly. |
Without divulging too much information on this short article, the judges not only believe the mandatory sentences prevent a fair ruling based on the individual's offense, but these judges also believe that the punishment is far in excess. At one point, the article mentions a 19 year sentence for a first offender, who was a nurse, had no drugs on her, had no drugs in her, and had no residue of drugs on her belongings. Other than the reasoning the article gave, why did she get arrested? To go along with this article about how the court system takes the "anti-drug" policy too far, I've provided a link regarding drug arrests. To paraphrase and summarize, it talks about how drug arrests have been dropping since 2002 but still accounts for more than all the violent crimes committed combined for those years. Here's the link... http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/a_drug_arrest_every_18_seconds