Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
Check out these two articles from today's Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7630076?source=rv
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7630077?source=rv
Case 1: Man gets 55 YEARS for dealing pot with a concealed firearm (first offense)- the man is black.
Case 2: Man gets 1-15 years for nearly starving a child to death over the course of a year while the child's mother was in Iraq (child went from 35 pounds to 13 under his care while he was admittedly wasted on drugs and alcohol)- man is white.
Race may have nothing to do with the disparity, but you have to at least wonder. 55 years for dealing pot with a gun hardly seems constitutional. |
I thought the article said that the term was mandatory. Juries don't get told what the sentence is going to be before they convict. So say that there is a mandatory sentence of 14 years for each conviction. The judge then has no choice but to impose it.
Legislators love to look tough and enact mandatory minimum sentencing, but 99% of the time something that removes discretion from the judge or prosecutor is bad. Bad bad bad. Sounds to me like they have a lousy law. I don't see it as racist though. I hope the 8th amendment challenge is successful. Sounds like the trial judge was all but inviting that sort of challenge with the language he used when he imposed it.