I've written about our criminal justice system many times.  If I were to write about criminal justice full-time for the rest of my life it would be but an infinitesimal addition to the national library on that subject.

Occasionally, a case takes place that illustrates just how perverted our criminal justice system has become. If you haven't heard about the trial and sentence of Weldon Angelos, it's time you have.

The whole idea of our elaborate criminal justice system is supposed to be that we ferret out those who are guilty and deal out punishment that is appropriate to the crime. Each case is supposed to be treated uniquely, taking into account the circumstances of each case. Both judges and juries are supposed to have the ability to weigh all the facts of a case and impose a verdict and sentence that is just and fair. The 8th Amendment to our Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment".

First... Weldon Angelos is guilty of the charges. Twice, he sold $350 worth of marijuana to a police informant. The first time, he had a handgun in the console of his car, the second time he had the gun in an ankle holster. More than a year later, the police found 3 guns in his apartment. He wasn't accused of harming or threatening anyone. A successful businessman, founder of Extravagant Records, this was his first criminal offense.

We could argue about the methods used by the police, or about whether marijuana sales should be illegal, but even if we accept all that, it's pretty clear that this isn't a "major" case in any way... except in the sentence.

How is it possible that a sentence of 55 years and 1 day, with no possibility of parole, was given to Weldon Angelos, when the following additional factors are all true?

1. If prosecuted under Utah state law, Mr. Angelos would have faced about 6 years.
   
   
2. The federal sentencing guidelines specify a penalty of about 7 years.
   
   
3. The government agreed that his sentence is greater than he would have gotten in any state court.
   
   
4. The prosecution offered a 15-year sentence deal that he refused.
   
   
5. The jury agreed on an average 18-year sentence.

Before sentencing, a friend of the court brief (pdf) was filed by a group of 29 former U. S. District Court judges, U. S. Circuit Court judges and U. S. Attorneys, including former U. S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach. Here are the conclusions they filed in their 28-page brief:

• Angelos' Contemplated Mandatory Minimum Sentence Is Cruel And Unusual In Violation Of The Eighth Amendment.
  
  
• Angelos' Proposed Sentence Is Grossly Disproportionate To The Offenses For Which He Was Convicted.
  
  
• Angelos' Proposed Sentence Violates Society's Evolving Standards of Decency.
  
  
• Angelos' Proposed Mandatory Sentence Violates The Separation of Powers.
  
  
• Angelos' Mandatory Sentence Violates His Due Process Rights.
  
  
• The Contemplated Mandatory Minimum Sentence Violates Angelos' Sixth Amendment Right To Trial By Jury Because It Is The Result Of Illegal Fact Bargaining.

Despite all that, Angelos was sentenced to what amounts to a life sentence for a first-time non-violent drug offense.

Was it a harsh judge?

Even though Judge Cassell, appointed by George W. Bush, has a reputation as a hard judge, he searched for any way to avoid giving Angelos an excessive sentence. In his memoranda about the case, he said

The 55-year sentence mandated by § 924(c) in this case appears to be unjust, cruel, and irrational. But our constitutional system of government requires the court to follow the law, not its own personal views about what the law ought to be.

In reading Cassell's 68-page memoranda, it's clear that the judge searched laboriously for any way possible to avoid issuing a draconian sentence, and could not find a way to avoid it. He was simply bound by the law. Judge Cassell wrote:

Mr. Angelos is facing a prison term which more than doubles the sentence of, for example, an aircraft hijacker (293 months), a terrorist who detonates a bomb in a public place (235 months), a racist who attacks a minority with the intent to kill and inflicts permanent or life-threatening injuries (210 months), a second-degree murderer, or a rapist.

Judge Cassell wrote to President Bush and asked that the sentence be commuted to a prison term of no more than 18 years. He also wrote to Congress, asking them to modify the laws that required such an egregious sentence.

§ 924 is the legislation that provides "enhanced" sentences when guns are present during drug crimes... the gun need not be used, or even brandished... just present. § 924 has been modified many times, making it harsher, and it is a disgusting example of legislators arrogantly imposing their will on federal judges.

The result of such legislation is, in addition to the terrible cost to people like Angelos, escalating costs and workload in the court system and a huge prison population that is enormously expensive. Such laws are torturing our criminal justice system, producing results that harm every one of us. Some judges have resigned to avoid having to issue such unjust sentences. I recommend that each reader take a good look at Judge Cassell's opinion to get an idea just how convoluted justice becomes under mandatory sentencing.

For even more information about the Angelos case, see the FAMM resources page.