- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,765
- Reaction score
- 4,940
- Location
- Green Country
- Website
- www.bobmuellerwriter.com
Loved this piece from Slate last week about a federal judge in New York, of all places, who showed mercy guided by wisdom by giving a light sentence to a woman convicted of smuggling drugs from Jamaica.
Saying that "'[T]he collateral consequences Ms. Nesbeth will suffer, and is likely to suffer … has compelled me to conclude that she has been sufficiently punished, and that jail is not necessary to render a punishment that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet the ends of sentencing,'" Frederic Block sentenced the 20-year-old college student to 6 months home confinement, 1 year probation, and 100 hours of community service.
In his opinion, Block wrote
I'm getting soft in my old age, because I think he nailed it. There was a time that I would have said "String her up!" with no regard for mercy in the least. She's a convicted drug smuggler, and probably a part-time dealer, because almost 700 grams is not for personal use, unless she got some kind of sweet deal for buying in bulk.
But more and more, I find myself arguing against a lot of the post-conviction penalties society imposes on people who have paid their debt. How do we expect people to really change their behavior if, after we're done locking them in a cell for a decade or so, prevent them from doing any number of jobs they might be very talented or well-trained for, because they were convicted of breaking a law that might well not have anything to do with their job skills. (Man, that was an ugly sentence.)
This kind of ties in to the mandatory minimums discussion we were having elsewhere, but the crimes are drastically different, so I didn't want to put this there.
Judge Block has had some big cases before, including John Gotti's trial, as well as one of the first big post-9/11 cases involving ethnicity as a propensity to commit crime. He's a Clinton appointee, and probably due to retire soon; he's 81, and in his own words, in the DGS stage of his life.
Of course, the NY Post disagreed, as I'm sure other local papers did. But I think he got it right. I really want to read his book as well as The New Jim Crow that he quoted in his decision.
Saying that "'[T]he collateral consequences Ms. Nesbeth will suffer, and is likely to suffer … has compelled me to conclude that she has been sufficiently punished, and that jail is not necessary to render a punishment that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet the ends of sentencing,'" Frederic Block sentenced the 20-year-old college student to 6 months home confinement, 1 year probation, and 100 hours of community service.
In his opinion, Block wrote
I'm getting soft in my old age, because I think he nailed it. There was a time that I would have said "String her up!" with no regard for mercy in the least. She's a convicted drug smuggler, and probably a part-time dealer, because almost 700 grams is not for personal use, unless she got some kind of sweet deal for buying in bulk.
But more and more, I find myself arguing against a lot of the post-conviction penalties society imposes on people who have paid their debt. How do we expect people to really change their behavior if, after we're done locking them in a cell for a decade or so, prevent them from doing any number of jobs they might be very talented or well-trained for, because they were convicted of breaking a law that might well not have anything to do with their job skills. (Man, that was an ugly sentence.)
This kind of ties in to the mandatory minimums discussion we were having elsewhere, but the crimes are drastically different, so I didn't want to put this there.
Judge Block has had some big cases before, including John Gotti's trial, as well as one of the first big post-9/11 cases involving ethnicity as a propensity to commit crime. He's a Clinton appointee, and probably due to retire soon; he's 81, and in his own words, in the DGS stage of his life.
Of course, the NY Post disagreed, as I'm sure other local papers did. But I think he got it right. I really want to read his book as well as The New Jim Crow that he quoted in his decision.