Wednesday, February 20, 2008



It isn't just us

Below is a comment from a group of police who believe that the "war" on drugs has had a catastrophic effect on the quality of policing

So - how's the drug war been doing, lately? Hmmmm, let's see. There was the midnight raid in the Minneapolis area that scared the heck out of six kids and their parents - all innocent of any dealings with illegal drugs. There was the shooting to death of a suspect's live-in and the wounding of the baby she was holding in Ohio which, stirred up accusations of racism and a lot of questions about the standard practice of relying on informants who have little to lose and lighter sentences to gain (and, by the way, caused the local paper's editorial staff to question the drug war). There was the shake-up in NYPD's narcotics units over discrepancies in their handling of cases and informants (suspensions, reassignments, command changes - oh, my!) and an ever growing unrest about the entire program among us folks.

I say it isn't just us in the world of drug policy change advocacy - others of note are taking notice, and speaking out more often. No longer are they just voices crying in the wilderness.

You know the drill; sometimes I get just downright lazy writing about the same old story. And I love having someone from outside the drug reform movement speak for us. So, here's another voice - conservative columnist Burt Prelutsky, who wrote, a few days ago, a column entitled Time Once Again to Prohibit Prohibition. After musing on a couple of other things, he wrote the following:
Next, I would like to see an end to the War on Drugs. It's a colossal waste of time, money and resources. I am not an advocate for illegal drugs, but for common sense. I don't use drugs and I very rarely drink alcohol, so I'm not campaigning on my own behalf, but what difference does it make to you what some fool decides to smoke, snort or shoot into his arm?

If you make the junk legal, we'll not only be able to collect tax revenue, but the price comes down and users aren't forced to steal in order to finance their habits. Plus, overnight, it would free up jail cells so that we could put an end to early release for those cretins who should never see the light of day.

On the other hand, if a person gets stoned on drugs that would now be legal and, say, gets into an automobile accident, I wouldn't let him cop a plea by blaming it on the substance. It's time we started holding people responsible for their acts. So, if you decide you'd like to try rehab, that's fine and dandy. But don't wait until you've been arrested. This is the real world and not a board game. You shouldn't get to use your addiction as a Get Out of Jail Free card.

The way things stand, illegal drugs are a multi-billion dollar business with most of the money going directly into the hands of vicious criminals who use it to bribe corrupt police officers, judges and politicians. The rest of the dough goes to Islamics who use it to finance terrorism. So much for those assorted Hollywood celebrities and Wall Street yuppies who insist that their recreational use of cocaine isn't hurting anyone.

Yet another downside to having made this stuff illegal is that it promotes hypocrisy. We Americans get to look down our noses at poppy farmers in Afghanistan, drug lords in Colombia and cops in Mexico, all the while overlooking the odious fact that they'd all have to start earning an honest living if millions of our fellow countrymen didn't constitute the world's single biggest market for this crap.

It took Americans just 14 years to conclude that Prohibition did nothing more than make folk heroes and millionaires of bootleggers, speakeasy owners and Al Capone. But, now, after several decades, we still haven't caught on that this latter day prohibition is an even bigger disaster.

Have we really gotten that much stupider since 1933? Perhaps so, or maybe it's just the drugs. In either case, we should all grow up and resolve in 2008 to face the music and acknowledge that sometimes good intentions don't necessarily pave the way to Paradise, but to Hell.

Once again, as said by others. Well said, at that.

Report here






One Australian prosecutor pushes for tougher sentences

Not a moment too soon. The courts seem to think that it is their role to keep people OUT of jail. They seize on the weakest of excuses to do so

VICTORIA'S top prosecutor will challenge the Court of Appeal to set tougher sentences for drug traffickers, murderers and frauds. Director of Public Prosecutions Jeremy Rapke, QC, is planning a series of "test case" appeals where he believes sentences have not met the expectations of lawmakers or the community. Mr Rapke said he believed some crimes had been "devalued" by light sentences.

He was particularly concerned by sentences in some serious drug cases. "That's one area which we're looking at very carefully to try and pick our mark for the appropriate case to test this on. "You've got people convicted of trafficking large commercial quantities of drugs, where the legislation says that's life imprisonment, and they're getting suspended sentences. "The Parliament says you can go to jail for life and they don't go to jail for one minute. I can't work it out."

The longest maximum sentence in Victoria in the past five years for large commercial drug trafficking was 16 years. The longest total effective sentence, including related charges, was 23 years with a 17-year minimum.

Mr Rapke also revealed:

THE recent decision that some sex cases would in future be heard in the Supreme Court would also work in reverse, with some other offences traditionally heard in the top court transferred to the County Court.

WORKING parties and management consultants were looking at ways to reduce delays in court hearings.

DELAYS in forensic testing were still resulting in bail being granted in serious cases.

HE will continue to speak up on behalf of victims despite the furore over his recent comments about the insensitivity of some judges towards sexual assault victims.

Mr Rapke said sentences for some murders and major frauds were likely to be among cases he would take to the Court of Appeal. "Our argument will be that some sentencing courts are having insufficient regard for the maximum penalty imposed by the legislature," Mr Rapke said. "What they tend to look at is what other courts have imposed in this type of case, rather than what they could have imposed." He said the Sentencing Act required sentencing judges to take account of the maximum penalty set by Parliament. "I think that's lost sometimes," he said.

Sentencing Advisory Council statistics show the longest sentence in the past five years for rape (maximum 25 years) was 20 years; the longest for armed robbery (25 years) was 11; for manslaughter (20 years) 15; and for fraud (10 years) six.

Mr Rapke has already lodged an appeal in the case of Cody Hutchings, 5, beaten to death by his mother's partner, Stuart John McMaster. "McMaster got a minimum of 10 years, which was then the longest manslaughter sentence for that type of crime ever handed down in Victoria," Mr Rapke said. "But I took the view that if the legislation says you can get 20 years for that, and this is in the highest category of that type of offence, why shouldn't the courts be looking at that as a guide? "One might say the offender 'got the tariff', but I'm trying to persuade the Court of Appeal that the tariff needs to be reviewed," he said. "I've taken the view in some cases that although the sentence being imposed might be said to be the current tariff, the current tariff may be said to be inadequate."

Mr Rapke succeeded Paul Coghlan, who launched more than 40 appeals in his last year as DPP before being appointed a Supreme Court judge last year. "I'm not keeping figures and I'm not interested in them, because I just view each case that comes to me entirely on its own," Mr Rapke said. "But I am trying to look for, one might say, test cases in a variety of different fields to see whether or not we can persuade the Court of Appeal to re-look at what has been regarded as the traditional tariff."

Source. (Via Australian Politics)




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)

No comments: