January 06, 2005

I'd agree, except for one thing. Most of the folks in jail for "non violent first offences" actually got busted for real violent crimes but their lawyers plea-bargained the charges down to simple drug possession. In my experience (in Texas and Missouri) it is very, very rare for anyone to go to jail for first time drug possession, even of large amounts of serious drugs, if possession or possession-with-intent-to-distribute was all they were originally accused of. Back in the '70s folks went to jail for possession, but I haven't heard of a case of that in the last couple of decades.

If prosecutors would quit letting someone guilty of manslaughter off with a three-year sentence for possession of drugs I’d agree that folks whose only conviction is drug possession shouldn’t go to prison in most cases. But the fact is that most of these folks are real criminals. Our system just doesn’t document what they really did, because the plea bargain is a secret back room deal.

I’m not a lawyer; I just read the newspapers. Perhaps my observations aren’t representative. But I’d be greatly surprised if there are many folks in federal prisons whose only offence was really just drug possession. I know the states where I’ve lived can’t afford the jail space for small time criminals. Maybe the federal prison system has more generous funding.

I totally agree that Martha got screwed and I think Teddy should have gotten the death penalty for murder by automobile.

Yeah gramps, except no one should ever go to jail for drug possession. Nor should they have to buy a doctor's permission to purchase pharmaceuticals.

That the legal and governing classes have let this tyranny grow for near a hundred years is the second greatest disgrace in American history.

Maybe I'm just a hard ass, but I think Stewart got what she deserved.

I also think Kennedy should have done time for reckless homicide, and Kerry should have been hanged for treason (Hey, at least I'm consistant).