In this video, Barack Obama visits an American prison. He tells the media that one of the main reasons of our mass incarceration is the mandatory minimum drug laws. With the War on Drug laws, one of them was a harsh punishment on crack and cocaine. The punishment for five grams of crack is a mandatory minimum of five years. The punishment for 500 grams of cocaine is the same offense, mandatory minimum of five years. I think it is crazy that the difference in amounts can be the same offense. I can see why they did this because crack was cheaper and easier to get, but I still think they should be somewhat similar punishments. Weldon Angelos like said in the video was sentenced to 55 years in prison for illegal firearm possession and distribution of 24 ounces of marijuana. In anyone’s right mind, they would think this sentence is unacceptable. Even the judge that sentenced him to 55 years told the media that is was not the right thing to do, but the criminal justice system made him do it. Angelos made a good point saying that a 55 year sentence wasn’t going to do anymore than a 5 or 10 year sentence would have done. I think that if he would’ve got just a 5 year sentence, he probably would have got the hint that he made a mistake and he will think twice about his decisions next time. Yes sure, mandatory minimums ensure the level of offense committed but they ensure it way more than it should. It could go either way. Some people may think these mandatory minimums should remain because they might just think that they deserve that. This is where our problem comes in today as to where our prisons are overpopulated and we need to change. -lilbaby001
The difference in the amount of drugs that someone might carry should make a difference in the prison sentence they receive. It was unreasonable for the courts to sentence Weldon Angelos to 55 years in prison for selling only 24 ounces of weed. This is a very mild offense and yet he received such a big sentence. The mandatory minimum policy should be recreated to be more fair towards what crimes they go towards and their severity. -Ram001
The difference in sentencing based on the drug is kind of ridicolous. Personally I believe all the sentences should be based off of size and intent of use, but I can see where the lawmakers came from because they probably based the sentences on how much of the drug was in the community at the time. Weldon definitely should have had a smaller sentence because 55 years is more suited for a violent crime. -Lobster001
This video talks about how the mandatory minimum drug laws have contributed to mass incarceration. In Weldon Angelos's case, he was sentenced to fifty-five years in prison for selling twenty-four ounces of pot. I could not agree more with what he said in regards to his sentence: "A fifty-five year sentence is not going to do more than a five to ten year sentence would have done, except destroy my entire life." Minor, non-violent offenses are not deserving of such harsh sentences. The main goal of incarceration should always be rehabilitation in drug offenses, yet time and time again, ordinary people who get caught up in these crimes waste away for one wrong move, while so many criminals who are actually a danger to society walk free and get off easily with plea deals or "good time". Even the judge on Angelos's case knew the sentence Angelos received was not the right move, but he had no other choice because of the mandatory sentencing laws that are in place. This video also talks about how powder cocaine does not warrant as harsh of a sentence as crack cocaine which is a huge problem in itself because they are the same drug, but one is less expensive and easier to come by. Those who come from a poorer background are more likely to use the less expensive crack cocaine than powder cocaine, which is what more wealthy people would use. This does not make sense to me and there is honestly no logical reasoning behind this. These laws have also led to racial disparity in sentencing which needs to be stopped, but won't be anytime soon if these laws are not reformed. Don't get me wrong, I *do* think those who use and distribute crack (of any sort) should be punished to a degree, but I do not think there should be a difference in sentencing depending on what form is being used. -Reid001
I agree that a 50 year sentence for a minor drug offense is going to do nothing more than a 5-10 year sentence would. Like he said, the only difference is that it will ruin his entire life. I think that if we looked into drug charges more and really thought about what kind of situation we’re dealing with, then we would make better decisions on sentencing these non-violent addicts.-Celtics001
I agree with you that minor non-violent offenses such as drug offenses should punish in the form of rehabilitation and not incarceration. I also agree with your position on the punishments on crack and cocaine. They are both equally as bad of drugs, so I do not see the need for a difference in sentencing. -lilbaby001
I cant stress enough how incarceration should be about rehabilitation. Without programs and rehabilitation your are not helping that person get the help that they truly need. It is sad to see people who might have a drug problem or etc spend years in prison while the real "criminals" who are doing serious crimes get to be free. -21Aries001
This video is about mandatory minimums for drug charges and what is wrong with them. The biggest example was during 1986-2010 for cocaine and crack. These two are the same drug except in different forms and taken different ways. Crack cocaine possession of 5 grams would get you a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison. On the other hand, you would have to have 500 grams of powder cocaine to receive the same mandatory minimum prison sentence of 5 years. The problem with this policy is that crack cocaine is super cheap and powder cocaine is super expensive, meaning that crack would be used commonly in cities and in poor neighborhoods. The powder cocaine would be used by the wealthy because the people living on the streets couldn’t afford it. This led to a huge disparity of 100-1, and since the laws were changed in 2010 it has dropped to 18-1. This video also talks about how a man was convicted of a drug charge, weed, and carrying a weapon. He was given 55 years and prison which was just simply too much. Why destroy his entire life over a bad judgement call? Sure, if the drug was crystal meth and the gun was an assault rifle then I could maybe understand. But for some weed and a pistol? Not only did the justice system ruin his life, but they ruined his family’s life. Overall I agree with what this video says about mandatory minimums. We really need to look at what type of offenders we’re dealing with. If we let this guy out after five years, worst case scenario, will he kill 5 people? Or will he start back into his drug habits and sit on the couch high? If it’s the second one then we shouldn’t put him in prison for 40 or 50 years because he isn’t a risk to society. -Celtics001
You're right that 55 years is far too much of a sentence for something that might not even be a crime depending on what state you're in today. There's nothing being gained that a lesser sentence couldn't have done. I think that mandatory minimums should be applied to violent crimes much more than they're applied to drug offences. -Stark001
In this video, it touches on how the biggest problem with our prison overpopulation has to do with mandatory minimums and drug offenders. While I do agree, mandatory minimums contribute to a high sentence for a low level crime, we need to take into account how our views have changed on drug sentencing as a society. We have changed drastically as a society from "the war on drugs" to almost having recreational marijuana. I believe that if we want different sentencing then we should work towards changing the mandatory minimums. I believe that we are using old laws for a new society. Also, 55 years for an abundance of weed and a weapon doesn't seem fair, especially in today's view point. If you attempted to compare having 500 grams of powder cocaine and getting 5 years or so to having some weed and a pistol it would be laughable. I feel bad for the judge who made the call to destroy this guys life just because of weed and a weapon. I did not like how the video tried to make it dramatic by saying how he had kids and a whole life ahead of him. The 55 years sentence alone should be enough. I feel as if it was biased towards marijuana. If the drug was not weed it would have been a different story, good or bad. Overall, I agree with the video. It gives a brief view of what some big problems are in the correctional system. Vox has always had decent content. Jackrabbit001
i'm really glad that you brought up "old laws in a new society". i couldn't agree more with that statement. we should be keeping laws up to date with society so that people are not getting locked up for petty crimes. sexy_in_bikini 001
I appreciate how you talk about the need for new laws to keep up with our new society. The mandatory sentencing for drug violations is definitely in need of reform today, so we can reduce the number of those incarcerated for minor violations of the law, especially when it is just a first offense. -Reid001
I am glad to see that the former president visited a prison in person to address the problems within the criminal justice system. He acknowledged the problem of overcrowding in prisons and said he’d work to finding a solution. I’m glad that he brought up that drug charges through the 80’s played a huge roll in the overpopulation in prisons. The reason that drug charges back in the 80’s were so drastic (mainly regarding crack) was because it was so cheap and easy to get. It infected the inner-city communities of America like a virus. It was able to be bought cheap and gave a strong high to anyone who used it. The government hoped that by making laws stricter, and by locking up anyone with possession of crack, that the epidemic would stop. However, it didn’t. Instead, it put more and more people into prison causing outrage among Americans. Rather than seeing that these strict laws were not helping society but hurting it, they kept the laws in place. For decades the mandatory minimum for different drugs stayed the same keeping people in prison for the majority of their life. In the case of Weldon Angelo, he was caught with a gun and weed to sell and was given 55 years. He had a family and career ahead of him, but as the judge in the video said, “a 55-year sentence isn’t going to do more than a 5 to 10-year sentence would do, except destroy a life”. Sadly, that’s what these mandatory minimums are doing to people, destroying lives. There are people who deserve to have their lives destroyed such as molesters, murderers, and rapists, but not people who made mistakes. There are people whose lives have been ruined by drugs, it’s become the only life they know. I don’t think that those people deserver prison (assuming they didn’t commit some crazy crime while under the influence), rather they just need help. As I said in my other post, America focuses too much on throwing people in prison and forgetting about them rather than helping them. Over all I found this video to be very interesting and I hope to see change regarding proper punishment in the future. sexy_in_bikini 001
I didn't think that it would take until the 44th president for one to visit a prison, I'm glad that he did though and decided to show an effort to reduce our massive prison population. A population that only got to be as large as it is due to mandatory minimum sentences for non violent crimes and the war on drugs. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws came around during the 80s when it was believed that they would be effective in stopping the drug epidemic that was plaguing the inner cities. But these days they're an archaic look back at a different time, from the beginning of the war on drugs to our modern stance with several states even having recreational marijuana laws. There is also a racial motive behind these laws, with vastly harsher sentences for crack cocaine, which is cheaper and easier to produce, than for the same amount of powder cocaine. This means that a poorer person, who was more likely to use crack, would be sentenced much more harshly than a rich person who could afford the powder version of cocaine. A former adviser to Richard Nixon, John Ehrlichman even admitted that one of the main focuses of the war on drugs was to suppress people who were black or anti-war. It is time to start changing these laws to meet modern expectations and modern attitudes. To start focusing on rehabilitating our inmates instead of simply locking them away, and to recognize the failure of the war on drugs. -Stark001
I would also agree I am surprised that Barrack Obama was the first president to visit a prison. I think that mandatory minimums did help in our massive prison population but not the only reason. I would also agree that we should change the laws. I feel as though we keep mandatory sentencing, but stop the disparity between similar crimes. -Legion001
This video by VOX starts by pointing out that former President Barrack Obama was the first sitting president to visit a prison. The video is about mandatory minimus. Mandatory minimums are laws that put a mandatory minimum on certain crimes. The only problem with this though is that these laws were being made during the spike in the so-called drug war. The country was trying to fight drugs, so they put harsh sentencing on nonviolent drug crimes, and the only problem with that portion of that is that crack cocaine and powder cocaine had different sentencing. You only had to have five grams of crack cocaine to get a five-year minimum sentence while you had to have five hundred grams of powder cocaine to get five years. This caused a massive problem for the impoverished community. Why this created such a problem was that crack cocaine cost a lot less than the powder version of cocaine but had a much lower tolerance in the criminal justice system. Some people believed that this was made because it was meant to target blacks because after these laws were passed blacks have been disproportionately put in prison more than white people. This was confusing though because many black leaders pushed for and liked these laws demanding that they be put in place. This had many problems though because people would get caught for drug offenses, but little violations would rack up and end up sentencing them for very long terms in prison. I think that mandatory minimums are a good thing. I believe that some should be changed such as the discrepancy between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, but the principle of putting minimum sentencing on crimes, violent and non-violent is not a bad thing. It gives judges an easier job when they have a minimum they can go off of so they can use their best judgment. -Legion001
I certainly agree with you that mandatory minimums are needed in society in certain aspects, mostly violent offenses in my opinion. I say this because the government needs to display to the public what is acceptable or not. Drugs on the other hand are seemingly a whole different spectrum because society worked its way into making it so unfair for people in poverty, essentially trapping them. Rock001
In this Vox video, the policies of mandatory minimuns by which an an offender must serve a certain term based on their actions is explained. It' pretty interesting to me to think that so many presidents, unlike Obama, have never really looked deeper into the issue of prison reform and mandatory minimums. Under the Reagan administration, these minimums were put in place as part of the "War on drugs". Although I can understand that at the time this seemed like a good time due to the growing amount of drug interest and not to mention the amount of opium addiction that was on the shoulders of solider returning from war not long ago, however this seemed foolish. I think the people that designed these laws felt that they were doing what they thought would solve the issue but in turn really only made things worse. In my opinion, it doesn't matter what you seem to outlaw (drugs, guns, etc) if people want to obtain these things badly enough, then they will do whatever matters necessary to get it. Whether that's through violent means or not, which would in turn stack up charges even worse, such as the case in this video where a 22 year old man was sentenced to over 50 years for drug trafficking and possession of a firearm. Although potentially dangerous for sure, it never did state exactly what he did with his firearm. Illegally carrying one and killing someone with it are two very different things, and now unfortunately that man will never be there for his two young sons who now don't have a strong father figure around and could repeat the unfair cycle of criminal behavior. Rock001
I could not agree more that the law makers had made a mistake by not thinking this through completely. Granted I am sure what they thought at the time was that this would solve the problem but just caused a big mess across the country. These mandatory minimums are most definitely needed in the aspects of dangerous crimes, but the drug aspects could use some revision for sure. -Blues001
Barack Obama was the first president to visit a federal prison. During his visit he believes that the reason that mass incarceration is a problem is the mandatory minimum drug laws. Mandatory minimums are meant for crimes that are deemed harmful to society. I don't believe that this policy should be put on drug violations. These violations shouldn't be considered harmful to society, for the most part these are non-violent crimes. A big portion of prisoners are in for crimes relating to drugs. This mandatory minimums policy was introduced during the drug war in the mid-80s. The sentencing for possession of crack cocaine was much higher than that of high amounts of powder cocaine. This seems unfair how possessing the high amounts of powder cocaine will can get someone probation and a small amount of crack cocaine will get someone 5 years minimum. The mandatory minimum policy has caused a lot of problems what with the overpopulation of prisons, unfair sentencing, and along with that the racial disparity that it has brought during the Reagan era. Weldon Angelo was sent to prison for 55 years for selling 24 ounces of marijuana while carrying a gun on him. This prison sentence is far beyond the mandatory minimum that is put on drug crimes. As Angelo himself said a 55 year sentence would not make any difference than a five or 10 year sentence except destroy his life. If he were to serve that entire sentence it would end up ruining his life because he has a good career in music ahead of him. Plus he also has a family to support. Michele Leonhart said that "mandatory minimums ensure that the right sentences and to equate the violator." This has clearly proven to be wrong considering that drug laws are non violent and therefore do not require much in the way of sentencing. Instead of sending drug violators to prison they should instead send those people to some form of program that can help them overcome their needs for drugs. -Ram001
I totally agree about how Mandatory Minimum laws have been unfair with sentencing and how it has overpopulated prisons. Also with how it doesn’t make sense how someone can get probation for a larger amount of cocaine, compared to the little amount of crack that gets someone sentenced years. Yet, I feel like some non violent crimes should be sentence a little more than others because of the reason that it can lead up to harming society. taco001
I agree with every statement that you made in your blog. I think that it is ridiculous that the man had to serve fifty-five years locked away in prison for a drug crime that he committed. He never actually hurt anyone. It’s not like he was committing a violent crime. The madatory minimum laws for drugs was completely unfair for him. -Anchorman001
This video that was made by Vox, dug into to the articulate world of mandatory minimums which is now something that the entire country is beginning to rethink. These mandatory minimum sentencing laws were originally put into place during the big spike with the war on drugs in the 80's which can raise many questions. With so much support from all sides of politics and leaders in the justice system, the laws were put into the criminal justice system in order to try to put a stop to the use of illegal narcotics. I am unsure if this was to be used as a scare tactic to keep others out of prisons by seeing these massive prison terms locking people up for small drug charges, but I think the issue started to compound into what it became today. The story of the father of 2 who received 55 years stunned me, especially considering that his charges were not as bad as they could have been for 55 years. I do believe these minimum laws need some revision because I believe rehab could potentially do more in these drug sentences than serving a few long years in a prison cell. Some inmates do deserve the sentences they receive and these laws are good for that so it is upheld across the country to keep it equal for all but in reality for most these laws are cutting peoples lives short. Something that rings a bell in my head is that this sounds similar to the constant discussion of gun control and putting new laws into place. In my opinion they are going to try and end all solution for this, being new laws, and that could have very well been what they thought in the 80's for these mandatory minimums. Put the laws into place to lock everyone up who did something minor, problem solved right? Not even close, that mindset is what caused our mass incarceration problems we have today. -Blues001
As the war on drugs in America became a massive problem in the 80’s. Congress passed a law sentencing people “fairly” for a specific amount and type of drug calling it Mandatory Minimum. Crack cocaine became the #1 drug, since it was the cheapest compared to powder cocaine. Rich people could only afford cocaine, so if they ever were charged for anything they were able to pay to get out of it. That wasn’t the case for crack, poor people would do anything to get a hold of it. Leaving children at home or not being able to hold a job because of the addiction, which increased crime rate and the jail population. 85% of African-Americans were incarcerated by Mandatory Minimum laws. Mandatory Minimums focused on the amount of a type of the drugs, for example crack cocaine. They would sentence 5 years for someone who had about 500 grams of crack. Which poor people usually could be able to afford that type of drug and would reoffend each time for it. The video in mentioned how people have been sentence up to 55 years for nonviolent crimes even without parole. Mandatory Minimums not only focus on just drug crime but also in other “nonviolent crimes” that can lead to violent if not helped appropriately. For example, shoplifting, gun crimes and even pornography. I think that the courts have been taking advantage of what and who gets incarcerated. Especially if they don’t get the chance of having parole. Even though nonviolent crimes in a community does affect it, so does families that are separated for petty crimes that are blown out of proportion. Even looking at past cases people that are sent to prison and taken out without any rehabilitation will most likely reoffend. Which makes the system look like it’s just going in circles. taco001
The prison system in America is a very touchy subject for most people, as it holds more inmates than any other country, nearly two and a half million. Due to this overcrowding problem in America, it has led to the Federal government to fund private prisons to house inmates. These types of prisons receive money for each inmate they home. I find this interesting. Considering that much of the prison population consists of drug offenders, they are locked up rather than sent to rehabilitation centers and receiving the proper care they need. This could help to avoid private prisons in general and save taxpayers money. Private prisons, ultimately driven by money and greed, are somewhat corrupt and are not held entirely accountable for wrongful actions. These prisons are for profit, as they receive more money the more people they incarcerate. What intrigues me is how transparent this is, yet it is still a clearly seen problem. Josh Friedman states that private prison, or “for profit prisons”, have no place in a democratic society. Can it be any more clear that there is a slight issue when CCA declines to comment or fully answer questions asked about specifics? The private prison concept receives support from a non profit organization called the Reason Foundation which believes in less government and more privatization. Based on money, these prison systems are concerned with only money and not at all with rehabilitation. It truly is sad. It is obvious that this is a corrupt and money driven industry. Overall, the entire prison industry needs a reform, and this has been known about America’s brutal prisons for quite some time. Lastly, how does a murder case in a prison cell go unsolved, with skull fractures, and all officers walk free after the cameras were shut off on that one day? It truly blows my mind that these problems are not transparent to more people. -freckles001
I found this short video very thought provoking. Throughout this video I had many different thoughts towards the sentencing that was being enforced. In my opinion there are sentences given out that are too harsh and do not fit the crime that was committed. For example, the man who was sentenced to serve fifty-five years in prison for selling drugs should not be forced to serve a penalty so harsh. I personally think that it is unnecessary to sentence terms as long as fifty-five years to people who have committed nonviolent crimes. This takes up prison space and costs the everyday taxpayers way more money than is necessary. A sentence of fifty-five years in prison is nowhere near the mandatory minimum drug laws. In my opinion that is ridiculous. In the video they stated that he could have been sentenced to about ten years in prison and would have learned the same lesson either way, but instead now he has to serve the whole rest of his life in prison for selling marijuana while carrying a weapon. President Barack Obama was in the video. When he was visiting the prison, he stated that he thought the main problem was mandatory minimum drug laws. One thing that I thought was extremely interesting while watching this short video was when they started talking about crack cocaine. Crack cocaine is simply just another form of cocaine that people smoke to get a high. Crack cocaine is much cheaper than powder cocaine so it was easy for the poorest of people to get their hands on the drug. Powder cocaine on the other hand is extremely expensive so only the rich could afford it. When it comes to the punishment for having been caught with crack cocaine, the mandatory minimum was five years in prison. -Anchorman001
It's surprising to see how Barack Obama was the first president to visit a federal prison I Would have thought for sure that other Presidents did the same thing to see about prison reform and changes. I do agree that the major growth of the prison population started with the war on drugs. I do believe that the mandatory minimums have pros and cons however, it can be a extreme and excessive in certain situations when it really shouldn't be. Everybody makes mistakes and deserves a second chance. I do not agree with sentencing Angelo 55 years for the crime he commited. That is one example of being used and taken to the extreme measures. He is correct that if “by receiving the 55 year sentence it isn't going to do anything more than 5-10 year sentence but ruin his life”. There is defiantly people who deserve that sentence who didn't commit a drug offense but did commit a major offense who should get that type of sentencing rather than him and others. Also the story in the background where Timothy Jackson stole a jacket from a department store in 1996 and, was still in prison is overwhelming and shocking. Timothy received life in prison for that incident because under Louisiana law he had reached “4 strikes” and now has to serve the rest of his life in prison. His prior convictions were all non violent and, he commited a robbery where he stole 216$ and when you combine the 216 and the price of the jacket at 159 plus his prior 3 “petty” convictions he is now prison for life. I believe mandatory Minimums need to be revised at the least if they are going to continue being used. People deserve a second chance and some of the crimes are not worth it. -21Aries001
In this video we see past president Barack Obama visiting one of prison's of America. The interesting point of this, is that he is the first US president to visit one of their own US federal prisons. We see inmates in there for carrying small amounts of drug paraphernalia, these men and women are facing 5+ years when they all some were doing were trying to ease pain, or help their family eat. Of course we can't argue that we shouldn't jail people when they do this, drugs are still a problem, but why do we punish people for 5 years when they could change in a year or less? We are still fighting this "Drug War" after all these years, in my opinion we aren't going to win. Look at us now, states are legalizing drugs that are currently in other states still a major offence to them. We are attempting to bypass the drug war by trying make it easier. You look at the father and future musician they listed. Sent away for 55 years for holding an illegally obtained firearm, and some drug paraphernalia. The judge who sentenced him even spoke out against these Mandatory Minimums. You know it's a problem when the people who sentence you are being forced to sentence you with extreme penalties when they know a smaller time would have actually saved you. - Lobster001
In this video, Barack Obama visits an American prison. He tells the media that one of the main reasons of our mass incarceration is the mandatory minimum drug laws. With the War on Drug laws, one of them was a harsh punishment on crack and cocaine. The punishment for five grams of crack is a mandatory minimum of five years. The punishment for 500 grams of cocaine is the same offense, mandatory minimum of five years. I think it is crazy that the difference in amounts can be the same offense. I can see why they did this because crack was cheaper and easier to get, but I still think they should be somewhat similar punishments. Weldon Angelos like said in the video was sentenced to 55 years in prison for illegal firearm possession and distribution of 24 ounces of marijuana. In anyone’s right mind, they would think this sentence is unacceptable. Even the judge that sentenced him to 55 years told the media that is was not the right thing to do, but the criminal justice system made him do it. Angelos made a good point saying that a 55 year sentence wasn’t going to do anymore than a 5 or 10 year sentence would have done. I think that if he would’ve got just a 5 year sentence, he probably would have got the hint that he made a mistake and he will think twice about his decisions next time. Yes sure, mandatory minimums ensure the level of offense committed but they ensure it way more than it should. It could go either way. Some people may think these mandatory minimums should remain because they might just think that they deserve that. This is where our problem comes in today as to where our prisons are overpopulated and we need to change. -lilbaby001
ReplyDeleteThe difference in the amount of drugs that someone might carry should make a difference in the prison sentence they receive. It was unreasonable for the courts to sentence Weldon Angelos to 55 years in prison for selling only 24 ounces of weed. This is a very mild offense and yet he received such a big sentence. The mandatory minimum policy should be recreated to be more fair towards what crimes they go towards and their severity.
Delete-Ram001
The difference in sentencing based on the drug is kind of ridicolous. Personally I believe all the sentences should be based off of size and intent of use, but I can see where the lawmakers came from because they probably based the sentences on how much of the drug was in the community at the time. Weldon definitely should have had a smaller sentence because 55 years is more suited for a violent crime. -Lobster001
DeleteThis video talks about how the mandatory minimum drug laws have contributed to mass incarceration. In Weldon Angelos's case, he was sentenced to fifty-five years in prison for selling twenty-four ounces of pot. I could not agree more with what he said in regards to his sentence: "A fifty-five year sentence is not going to do more than a five to ten year sentence would have done, except destroy my entire life." Minor, non-violent offenses are not deserving of such harsh sentences. The main goal of incarceration should always be rehabilitation in drug offenses, yet time and time again, ordinary people who get caught up in these crimes waste away for one wrong move, while so many criminals who are actually a danger to society walk free and get off easily with plea deals or "good time". Even the judge on Angelos's case knew the sentence Angelos received was not the right move, but he had no other choice because of the mandatory sentencing laws that are in place. This video also talks about how powder cocaine does not warrant as harsh of a sentence as crack cocaine which is a huge problem in itself because they are the same drug, but one is less expensive and easier to come by. Those who come from a poorer background are more likely to use the less expensive crack cocaine than powder cocaine, which is what more wealthy people would use. This does not make sense to me and there is honestly no logical reasoning behind this. These laws have also led to racial disparity in sentencing which needs to be stopped, but won't be anytime soon if these laws are not reformed. Don't get me wrong, I *do* think those who use and distribute crack (of any sort) should be punished to a degree, but I do not think there should be a difference in sentencing depending on what form is being used.
ReplyDelete-Reid001
I agree that a 50 year sentence for a minor drug offense is going to do nothing more than a 5-10 year sentence would. Like he said, the only difference is that it will ruin his entire life. I think that if we looked into drug charges more and really thought about what kind of situation we’re dealing with, then we would make better decisions on sentencing these non-violent addicts.-Celtics001
DeleteI agree with you that minor non-violent offenses such as drug offenses should punish in the form of rehabilitation and not incarceration. I also agree with your position on the punishments on crack and cocaine. They are both equally as bad of drugs, so I do not see the need for a difference in sentencing. -lilbaby001
DeleteI cant stress enough how incarceration should be about rehabilitation. Without programs and rehabilitation your are not helping that person get the help that they truly need. It is sad to see people who might have a drug problem or etc spend years in prison while the real "criminals" who are doing serious crimes get to be free.
Delete-21Aries001
This video is about mandatory minimums for drug charges and what is wrong with them. The biggest example was during 1986-2010 for cocaine and crack. These two are the same drug except in different forms and taken different ways. Crack cocaine possession of 5 grams would get you a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison. On the other hand, you would have to have 500 grams of powder cocaine to receive the same mandatory minimum prison sentence of 5 years. The problem with this policy is that crack cocaine is super cheap and powder cocaine is super expensive, meaning that crack would be used commonly in cities and in poor neighborhoods. The powder cocaine would be used by the wealthy because the people living on the streets couldn’t afford it. This led to a huge disparity of 100-1, and since the laws were changed in 2010 it has dropped to 18-1. This video also talks about how a man was convicted of a drug charge, weed, and carrying a weapon. He was given 55 years and prison which was just simply too much. Why destroy his entire life over a bad judgement call? Sure, if the drug was crystal meth and the gun was an assault rifle then I could maybe understand. But for some weed and a pistol? Not only did the justice system ruin his life, but they ruined his family’s life. Overall I agree with what this video says about mandatory minimums. We really need to look at what type of offenders we’re dealing with. If we let this guy out after five years, worst case scenario, will he kill 5 people? Or will he start back into his drug habits and sit on the couch high? If it’s the second one then we shouldn’t put him in prison for 40 or 50 years because he isn’t a risk to society. -Celtics001
ReplyDeleteYou're right that 55 years is far too much of a sentence for something that might not even be a crime depending on what state you're in today. There's nothing being gained that a lesser sentence couldn't have done. I think that mandatory minimums should be applied to violent crimes much more than they're applied to drug offences. -Stark001
DeleteIn this video, it touches on how the biggest problem with our prison overpopulation has to do with mandatory minimums and drug offenders. While I do agree, mandatory minimums contribute to a high sentence for a low level crime, we need to take into account how our views have changed on drug sentencing as a society. We have changed drastically as a society from "the war on drugs" to almost having recreational marijuana. I believe that if we want different sentencing then we should work towards changing the mandatory minimums. I believe that we are using old laws for a new society. Also, 55 years for an abundance of weed and a weapon doesn't seem fair, especially in today's view point. If you attempted to compare having 500 grams of powder cocaine and getting 5 years or so to having some weed and a pistol it would be laughable. I feel bad for the judge who made the call to destroy this guys life just because of weed and a weapon. I did not like how the video tried to make it dramatic by saying how he had kids and a whole life ahead of him. The 55 years sentence alone should be enough. I feel as if it was biased towards marijuana. If the drug was not weed it would have been a different story, good or bad. Overall, I agree with the video. It gives a brief view of what some big problems are in the correctional system. Vox has always had decent content. Jackrabbit001
ReplyDeletei'm really glad that you brought up "old laws in a new society". i couldn't agree more with that statement. we should be keeping laws up to date with society so that people are not getting locked up for petty crimes. sexy_in_bikini 001
DeleteI appreciate how you talk about the need for new laws to keep up with our new society. The mandatory sentencing for drug violations is definitely in need of reform today, so we can reduce the number of those incarcerated for minor violations of the law, especially when it is just a first offense.
Delete-Reid001
I am glad to see that the former president visited a prison in person to address the problems within the criminal justice system. He acknowledged the problem of overcrowding in prisons and said he’d work to finding a solution. I’m glad that he brought up that drug charges through the 80’s played a huge roll in the overpopulation in prisons. The reason that drug charges back in the 80’s were so drastic (mainly regarding crack) was because it was so cheap and easy to get. It infected the inner-city communities of America like a virus. It was able to be bought cheap and gave a strong high to anyone who used it. The government hoped that by making laws stricter, and by locking up anyone with possession of crack, that the epidemic would stop. However, it didn’t. Instead, it put more and more people into prison causing outrage among Americans. Rather than seeing that these strict laws were not helping society but hurting it, they kept the laws in place. For decades the mandatory minimum for different drugs stayed the same keeping people in prison for the majority of their life. In the case of Weldon Angelo, he was caught with a gun and weed to sell and was given 55 years. He had a family and career ahead of him, but as the judge in the video said, “a 55-year sentence isn’t going to do more than a 5 to 10-year sentence would do, except destroy a life”. Sadly, that’s what these mandatory minimums are doing to people, destroying lives. There are people who deserve to have their lives destroyed such as molesters, murderers, and rapists, but not people who made mistakes. There are people whose lives have been ruined by drugs, it’s become the only life they know. I don’t think that those people deserver prison (assuming they didn’t commit some crazy crime while under the influence), rather they just need help. As I said in my other post, America focuses too much on throwing people in prison and forgetting about them rather than helping them. Over all I found this video to be very interesting and I hope to see change regarding proper punishment in the future. sexy_in_bikini 001
ReplyDeleteI didn't think that it would take until the 44th president for one to visit a prison, I'm glad that he did though and decided to show an effort to reduce our massive prison population. A population that only got to be as large as it is due to mandatory minimum sentences for non violent crimes and the war on drugs. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws came around during the 80s when it was believed that they would be effective in stopping the drug epidemic that was plaguing the inner cities. But these days they're an archaic look back at a different time, from the beginning of the war on drugs to our modern stance with several states even having recreational marijuana laws. There is also a racial motive behind these laws, with vastly harsher sentences for crack cocaine, which is cheaper and easier to produce, than for the same amount of powder cocaine. This means that a poorer person, who was more likely to use crack, would be sentenced much more harshly than a rich person who could afford the powder version of cocaine. A former adviser to Richard Nixon, John Ehrlichman even admitted that one of the main focuses of the war on drugs was to suppress people who were black or anti-war. It is time to start changing these laws to meet modern expectations and modern attitudes. To start focusing on rehabilitating our inmates instead of simply locking them away, and to recognize the failure of the war on drugs. -Stark001
ReplyDeleteI would also agree I am surprised that Barrack Obama was the first president to visit a prison. I think that mandatory minimums did help in our massive prison population but not the only reason. I would also agree that we should change the laws. I feel as though we keep mandatory sentencing, but stop the disparity between similar crimes. -Legion001
DeleteThis video by VOX starts by pointing out that former President Barrack Obama was the first sitting president to visit a prison. The video is about mandatory minimus. Mandatory minimums are laws that put a mandatory minimum on certain crimes. The only problem with this though is that these laws were being made during the spike in the so-called drug war. The country was trying to fight drugs, so they put harsh sentencing on nonviolent drug crimes, and the only problem with that portion of that is that crack cocaine and powder cocaine had different sentencing. You only had to have five grams of crack cocaine to get a five-year minimum sentence while you had to have five hundred grams of powder cocaine to get five years. This caused a massive problem for the impoverished community. Why this created such a problem was that crack cocaine cost a lot less than the powder version of cocaine but had a much lower tolerance in the criminal justice system. Some people believed that this was made because it was meant to target blacks because after these laws were passed blacks have been disproportionately put in prison more than white people. This was confusing though because many black leaders pushed for and liked these laws demanding that they be put in place. This had many problems though because people would get caught for drug offenses, but little violations would rack up and end up sentencing them for very long terms in prison. I think that mandatory minimums are a good thing. I believe that some should be changed such as the discrepancy between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, but the principle of putting minimum sentencing on crimes, violent and non-violent is not a bad thing. It gives judges an easier job when they have a minimum they can go off of so they can use their best judgment. -Legion001
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with you that mandatory minimums are needed in society in certain aspects, mostly violent offenses in my opinion. I say this because the government needs to display to the public what is acceptable or not. Drugs on the other hand are seemingly a whole different spectrum because society worked its way into making it so unfair for people in poverty, essentially trapping them. Rock001
DeleteIn this Vox video, the policies of mandatory minimuns by which an an offender must serve a certain term based on their actions is explained. It' pretty interesting to me to think that so many presidents, unlike Obama, have never really looked deeper into the issue of prison reform and mandatory minimums. Under the Reagan administration, these minimums were put in place as part of the "War on drugs". Although I can understand that at the time this seemed like a good time due to the growing amount of drug interest and not to mention the amount of opium addiction that was on the shoulders of solider returning from war not long ago, however this seemed foolish. I think the people that designed these laws felt that they were doing what they thought would solve the issue but in turn really only made things worse. In my opinion, it doesn't matter what you seem to outlaw (drugs, guns, etc) if people want to obtain these things badly enough, then they will do whatever matters necessary to get it. Whether that's through violent means or not, which would in turn stack up charges even worse, such as the case in this video where a 22 year old man was sentenced to over 50 years for drug trafficking and possession of a firearm. Although potentially dangerous for sure, it never did state exactly what he did with his firearm. Illegally carrying one and killing someone with it are two very different things, and now unfortunately that man will never be there for his two young sons who now don't have a strong father figure around and could repeat the unfair cycle of criminal behavior. Rock001
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more that the law makers had made a mistake by not thinking this through completely. Granted I am sure what they thought at the time was that this would solve the problem but just caused a big mess across the country. These mandatory minimums are most definitely needed in the aspects of dangerous crimes, but the drug aspects could use some revision for sure.
Delete-Blues001
Barack Obama was the first president to visit a federal prison. During his visit he believes that the reason that mass incarceration is a problem is the mandatory minimum drug laws. Mandatory minimums are meant for crimes that are deemed harmful to society. I don't believe that this policy should be put on drug violations. These violations shouldn't be considered harmful to society, for the most part these are non-violent crimes. A big portion of prisoners are in for crimes relating to drugs. This mandatory minimums policy was introduced during the drug war in the mid-80s. The sentencing for possession of crack cocaine was much higher than that of high amounts of powder cocaine. This seems unfair how possessing the high amounts of powder cocaine will can get someone probation and a small amount of crack cocaine will get someone 5 years minimum. The mandatory minimum policy has caused a lot of problems what with the overpopulation of prisons, unfair sentencing, and along with that the racial disparity that it has brought during the Reagan era. Weldon Angelo was sent to prison for 55 years for selling 24 ounces of marijuana while carrying a gun on him. This prison sentence is far beyond the mandatory minimum that is put on drug crimes. As Angelo himself said a 55 year sentence would not make any difference than a five or 10 year sentence except destroy his life. If he were to serve that entire sentence it would end up ruining his life because he has a good career in music ahead of him. Plus he also has a family to support. Michele Leonhart said that "mandatory minimums ensure that the right sentences and to equate the violator." This has clearly proven to be wrong considering that drug laws are non violent and therefore do not require much in the way of sentencing. Instead of sending drug violators to prison they should instead send those people to some form of program that can help them overcome their needs for drugs.
ReplyDelete-Ram001
I totally agree about how Mandatory Minimum laws have been unfair with sentencing and how it has overpopulated prisons. Also with how it doesn’t make sense how someone can get probation for a larger amount of cocaine, compared to the little amount of crack that gets someone sentenced years. Yet, I feel like some non violent crimes should be sentence a little more than others because of the reason that it can lead up to harming society. taco001
DeleteI agree with every statement that you made in your blog. I think that it is ridiculous that the man had to serve fifty-five years locked away in prison for a drug crime that he committed. He never actually hurt anyone. It’s not like he was committing a violent crime. The madatory minimum laws for drugs was completely unfair for him. -Anchorman001
DeleteThis video that was made by Vox, dug into to the articulate world of mandatory minimums which is now something that the entire country is beginning to rethink. These mandatory minimum sentencing laws were originally put into place during the big spike with the war on drugs in the 80's which can raise many questions. With so much support from all sides of politics and leaders in the justice system, the laws were put into the criminal justice system in order to try to put a stop to the use of illegal narcotics. I am unsure if this was to be used as a scare tactic to keep others out of prisons by seeing these massive prison terms locking people up for small drug charges, but I think the issue started to compound into what it became today. The story of the father of 2 who received 55 years stunned me, especially considering that his charges were not as bad as they could have been for 55 years. I do believe these minimum laws need some revision because I believe rehab could potentially do more in these drug sentences than serving a few long years in a prison cell. Some inmates do deserve the sentences they receive and these laws are good for that so it is upheld across the country to keep it equal for all but in reality for most these laws are cutting peoples lives short. Something that rings a bell in my head is that this sounds similar to the constant discussion of gun control and putting new laws into place. In my opinion they are going to try and end all solution for this, being new laws, and that could have very well been what they thought in the 80's for these mandatory minimums. Put the laws into place to lock everyone up who did something minor, problem solved right? Not even close, that mindset is what caused our mass incarceration problems we have today.
ReplyDelete-Blues001
As the war on drugs in America became a massive problem in the 80’s. Congress passed a law sentencing people “fairly” for a specific amount and type of drug calling it Mandatory Minimum. Crack cocaine became the #1 drug, since it was the cheapest compared to powder cocaine. Rich people could only afford cocaine, so if they ever were charged for anything they were able to pay to get out of it. That wasn’t the case for crack, poor people would do anything to get a hold of it. Leaving children at home or not being able to hold a job because of the addiction, which increased crime rate and the jail population. 85% of African-Americans were incarcerated by Mandatory Minimum laws. Mandatory Minimums focused on the amount of a type of the drugs, for example crack cocaine. They would sentence 5 years for someone who had about 500 grams of crack. Which poor people usually could be able to afford that type of drug and would reoffend each time for it. The video in mentioned how people have been sentence up to 55 years for nonviolent crimes even without parole. Mandatory Minimums not only focus on just drug crime but also in other “nonviolent crimes” that can lead to violent if not helped appropriately. For example, shoplifting, gun crimes and even pornography. I think that the courts have been taking advantage of what and who gets incarcerated. Especially if they don’t get the chance of having parole. Even though nonviolent crimes in a community does affect it, so does families that are separated for petty crimes that are blown out of proportion. Even looking at past cases people that are sent to prison and taken out without any rehabilitation will most likely reoffend. Which makes the system look like it’s just going in circles. taco001
ReplyDeleteThe prison system in America is a very touchy subject for most people, as it holds more inmates than any other country, nearly two and a half million. Due to this overcrowding problem in America, it has led to the Federal government to fund private prisons to house inmates. These types of prisons receive money for each inmate they home. I find this interesting. Considering that much of the prison population consists of drug offenders, they are locked up rather than sent to rehabilitation centers and receiving the proper care they need. This could help to avoid private prisons in general and save taxpayers money. Private prisons, ultimately driven by money and greed, are somewhat corrupt and are not held entirely accountable for wrongful actions. These prisons are for profit, as they receive more money the more people they incarcerate. What intrigues me is how transparent this is, yet it is still a clearly seen problem. Josh Friedman states that private prison, or “for profit prisons”, have no place in a democratic society. Can it be any more clear that there is a slight issue when CCA declines to comment or fully answer questions asked about specifics? The private prison concept receives support from a non profit organization called the Reason Foundation which believes in less government and more privatization. Based on money, these prison systems are concerned with only money and not at all with rehabilitation. It truly is sad. It is obvious that this is a corrupt and money driven industry. Overall, the entire prison industry needs a reform, and this has been known about America’s brutal prisons for quite some time. Lastly, how does a murder case in a prison cell go unsolved, with skull fractures, and all officers walk free after the cameras were shut off on that one day? It truly blows my mind that these problems are not transparent to more people. -freckles001
ReplyDeleteI found this short video very thought provoking. Throughout this video I had many different thoughts towards the sentencing that was being enforced. In my opinion there are sentences given out that are too harsh and do not fit the crime that was committed. For example, the man who was sentenced to serve fifty-five years in prison for selling drugs should not be forced to serve a penalty so harsh. I personally think that it is unnecessary to sentence terms as long as fifty-five years to people who have committed nonviolent crimes. This takes up prison space and costs the everyday taxpayers way more money than is necessary. A sentence of fifty-five years in prison is nowhere near the mandatory minimum drug laws. In my opinion that is ridiculous. In the video they stated that he could have been sentenced to about ten years in prison and would have learned the same lesson either way, but instead now he has to serve the whole rest of his life in prison for selling marijuana while carrying a weapon. President Barack Obama was in the video. When he was visiting the prison, he stated that he thought the main problem was mandatory minimum drug laws. One thing that I thought was extremely interesting while watching this short video was when they started talking about crack cocaine. Crack cocaine is simply just another form of cocaine that people smoke to get a high. Crack cocaine is much cheaper than powder cocaine so it was easy for the poorest of people to get their hands on the drug. Powder cocaine on the other hand is extremely expensive so only the rich could afford it. When it comes to the punishment for having been caught with crack cocaine, the mandatory minimum was five years in prison. -Anchorman001
ReplyDeleteIt's surprising to see how Barack Obama was the first president to visit a federal prison I Would have thought for sure that other Presidents did the same thing to see about prison reform and changes. I do agree that the major growth of the prison population started with the war on drugs. I do believe that the mandatory minimums have pros and cons however, it can be a extreme and excessive in certain situations when it really shouldn't be. Everybody makes mistakes and deserves a second chance. I do not agree with sentencing Angelo 55 years for the crime he commited. That is one example of being used and taken to the extreme measures. He is correct that if “by receiving the 55 year sentence it isn't going to do anything more than 5-10 year sentence but ruin his life”. There is defiantly people who deserve that sentence who didn't commit a drug offense but did commit a major offense who should get that type of sentencing rather than him and others. Also the story in the background where Timothy Jackson stole a jacket from a department store in 1996 and, was still in prison is overwhelming and shocking. Timothy received life in prison for that incident because under Louisiana law he had reached “4 strikes” and now has to serve the rest of his life in prison. His prior convictions were all non violent and, he commited a robbery where he stole 216$ and when you combine the 216 and the price of the jacket at 159 plus his prior 3 “petty” convictions he is now prison for life. I believe mandatory Minimums need to be revised at the least if they are going to continue being used. People deserve a second chance and some of the crimes are not worth it.
ReplyDelete-21Aries001
In this video we see past president Barack Obama visiting one of prison's of America. The interesting point of this, is that he is the first US president to visit one of their own US federal prisons. We see inmates in there for carrying small amounts of drug paraphernalia, these men and women are facing 5+ years when they all some were doing were trying to ease pain, or help their family eat. Of course we can't argue that we shouldn't jail people when they do this, drugs are still a problem, but why do we punish people for 5 years when they could change in a year or less? We are still fighting this "Drug War" after all these years, in my opinion we aren't going to win. Look at us now, states are legalizing drugs that are currently in other states still a major offence to them. We are attempting to bypass the drug war by trying make it easier. You look at the father and future musician they listed. Sent away for 55 years for holding an illegally obtained firearm, and some drug paraphernalia. The judge who sentenced him even spoke out against these Mandatory Minimums. You know it's a problem when the people who sentence you are being forced to sentence you with extreme penalties when they know a smaller time would have actually saved you. - Lobster001
ReplyDelete