This story is already being well bounced around the blogosphere. Let me give it another bounce. Here is what Jacob Sullum of Reason online says:
Although prosecutors admitted Paey was not a drug trafficker, on April 16 he received a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for drug trafficking. That jaw-dropping outcome illustrates two sadly familiar side effects of the war on drugs: the injustice caused by mandatory minimum sentences and the suffering caused by the government’s interference with pain treatment.
Paey, a 45-year-old father of three, is disabled as a result of a 1985 car accident, failed back surgery, and multiple sclerosis. Today, as he sits in jail in his wheelchair, a subdermal pump delivers a steady, programmed dose of morphine to his spine. But for years he treated his pain with Percocet, Lortab (a painkiller containing the narcotic hydrocodone), and Valium prescribed by his doctor in New Jersey, Steven Nurkiewicz.
Insane.
I got to this by going to Instapundit and then to National Review.
War on drugs: insane; the blogosphere: sane.
I have always agreed that pot causes insanity. It has driven our government nuts.
That’s horrific. The drugs war is certainly crazy, and the legal system (perhaps like most legal systems) screwed up. Though, if you read Jacob Sullum’s report, Paey seems to have made things much worse for himself by being a stickler for accuracy and refusing a plea bargain. What Micklethwait doesn’t include in his post, but which really upsets me, is that according to one juror interviewed by the St Petersburg Times the jurors didn’t understand that by finding Paey guilty they risked sending him to jail, because they were assured by the foreman that he would get probation. Jurors need to be correctly informed, because they have more power than judges to protect the accused from manifest injustice.
Jurors (at least in California, and I’ve no reason to think Florida is different) are explicity told that they may not consider the possible sentence when deciding on the verdict. Of course just because the judge says it doesn’t make it right, and a juror who keeps his mouth shut about why he’s voting “not guilty” certainly can consider the sentence, but keep in mind the jury pools (especially in drug cases) are screened to eliminate anyone who might not be willing to rubber-stamp a conviction.
So what is the game-plan, politically speaking, to stop this?
Sure, we can do things about the judicial process and about minimum sentencing, but what about the long term?
How do you change the minds of millions of Americans to show how wrong the notion of convicting victimless crimes is?
As a politician, how do you bring this up without being attacked for “not caring about the children”? Jesse Ventura was crazy, and brought it up, but didn’t have any hand in changing the Federal laws.
http://while-true.blogspot.com/
Ivan:
When anybody tries that “don’t you care about the children” crap, I respond that what I’m doing is teaching children to think for themselves, and ask the inquisitor why they wish to send children the message that the way to get what you want is to demonize anybody who disagrees with you. It doesn’t change people’s minds, but it gets the child-exploiters irritated. 🙂
Changing public opinion is a lengthy and expensive task, but it can be done. As an example, 40 years ago a majority of normal people in the deep south of the USA thought it was perfectly ok to treat “dem niggers” as 2nd class citizens, send them to jail for marrying outside their race, and castrate or hang them in public for having sex with white women (or even being suspected of such). Now such behaviour would be regarded as pathological, and even failing to condemn it can be result in a label of “racist” and subsequent social ostracisation and even prosecution.
There is no reason to think the war on drugs is any different. It is simply a matter of enough people who care about it (i.e. drug users and their supporters) actually getting up off their arses and doing something.
I can easily imagine a campaign to free this guy. You could run some quite effective tv and newspaper ads e.g. have mugshots of convicted killers, child abusers, gang rapists etc, with a caption showing their crime and their sentence (all of which are lower than this guy). Then follow up with the caption “Justice” for each one. Then show a photo of this guy in a wheelchair, describe his “crime” and sentence. Then follow with the caption “Insanity”. The final bit would be some slogan criticising mandatory minimums and the drug laws, followed by contact details and an appeal for support.
You could also document the criminal mischief of violent repeat-offenders who have been released on parole (i.e. serial killers and rapists). That would make people think twice about wasting a jail cell on torturing someone who is already in immense pain.
What remains a mystery to me is that drug users fill jail cells when what they really need is rehab (and some don’t even need that much), and those who really deserve punishment are set free to make more room.
Have you ever wondered why mandatory sentences have been imposed on the judiciary by the legislature?
Eg. A friend’s son and girlfriend got mugged in Philadelphia by a black. At one point in the crime, he stuck the gun into the son’s mouth. I submit this suggest a potential for violence.
The black jury found him guilty of armed robbery. The black judge at sentencing said there were too many black men in jail (Verifiably false in this case!) and gave him parole (maybe he got some minimal jail time.)
So, when judges follow their predjudices, not the law, the legislatures, responding to voter outrage, step in. I blame the judges.