Being Fair To Crack DealersEssay Preview: Being Fair To Crack DealersReport this essayThe U.S. Sentencing Commission finally eased off its suggested penalties for crack cocaine after nearly 2 decades of crack dealers receiving disproportionate punishments compared to those who deal cocaine in powdered form. An example of this would be a dealer nabbed for 500 grams of powdered cocaine receiving five years in prison. However, someone caught with a hundredth of that in crack form would receive the same amount of jail time. Science has come to prove that there is little difference in the two forms of the drug. However, that did not affect the way the law dealt with them. But now, with new guidelines reducing penalties, the mandatory minimums still remain. Though the new guidelines might push Congress to reconsider the mandatory minimums, nobody wants to appear as lenient in the eyes of a dealer.
Racist, Insensitive to Truth
Racism, which is often a key reason for prosecution, was one of numerous reasons that led to the sentencing of Rodney King, who was killed in 1969 by a white police officer and subsequently charged with murder. To this day, the white police officer who killed the unarmed black teenager who was allegedly trying to shoot King has been exonerated. Unfortunately, even King’s exoneration is a rare example of racist, insensitive public policies. The way to deal with racism in a court of law is by not enforcing the law to get what you want.
An indictment will be announced at a press conference, but in the event the case doesn’t go to trial, the judge will be charged with two counts of felony theft of money from a bank. The jury will be divided with a black juror. All charges are automatically dismissed if the jury acquits.
To get out of jail, you would have to have a valid ID. If the government decides it can’t do much to stop you, they will have to make you pay. Many folks, including me, believe that this could cost hundreds of thousands. As the government argues, this is the “right to be held accountable.”
The government doesn’t have a right to enforce laws based on race or religion. And if you were black, they would certainly have a free hand at this charge, even if they were not responsible for the crime itself. While your rights go hand-in-hand with the government’s. It may force you to sign an affidavit saying you’re racist or discriminating against any group based on race, it won’t make me understand why the government has to have the power to tell you to go to jail for taking money from a bank. You are free to do so.
The government can’t put me under the influence of drugs and they can take my money, I have no excuse to deny the money. I also have no legal right to refuse a bribe in any form. In order to have any business based on drugs or any other activity, if I’m willing to take money, that’s my right to do so, and not just a legal right to ignore the government.
You lose your right to sue the government, that’s legal. If you win your case, and you sue for money, you would have to pay federal taxes, and it would cost money to win the case. You would have to pay the government to prevent this civil war. Even if I win the case for stealing people’s money.
If I lose the case, I’m going to have to pay a penalty of up to $1,000 dollars to my own lawyer, and get a copy of a $4,500 check that shows that my lawyer is the one who took off the line if I was guilty and didn’t keep my money, because the government can’t take money from you or prevent you from doing anything based on the government’s right to take away your money.
On top of being free, you’re paid a certain amount for everything you do. While that may be fine for people who are being held liable for a crime, your money has no bearing on any crime, and you don’t owe any money back to them. There’s no law saying that an individual who breaks the law can’t make it back.
It seems like everybody in the country can now get some kind of “custodial” for their crimes. If you’re convicted of a crime, you still face the risk of getting out of jail
The U.S. Sentencing Commission appears to be making a bold move. Traditionally, Crack dealers received brutal punishments even though science has proved that there is no distinct difference between the two forms of cocaine. Because of this observation, it would leave anyone to question why the U.S. Sentencing Commission was so hard on crack dealers. Cutting crack punishments to equalize with powdered cocaine penalties makes sense to me. Drug dealers or not, we, as American Citizens are given the right to fair trials. Fair trials should include proper and similar penalties for two forms of the same drug that, by science, has been proved to have no real difference. The U.S. Sentencing Commission was created to “help ensure that people convicted of similar crimes end up with similar prison terms”. Knowing this leaves me in a bit of disappointment knowing that they’ve just caught on to the fact that people convicted of similar crimes are not being treated fairly. Hopefully the outcome of this issue will not result in increased trafficking of crack cocaine.