Federal Judges who DEFY the Law and violate MANDATORY minimum Sentences imposed by Statute.

The November Coalition ^ | FR Post 6-8-2 | Editorial Staff

[vannrox]

For years now, many Federal Judges have taken a stand against mandatory minimum sentences. Over 86% call for outright abolition of mandatory sentencing. Some Senior Federal Judges have refused to hear drug cases because of the long sentences they are bound by law to give defendants. Many Federal Judges are recording their dissent and we are collecting them here:

Judge Robert W. Pratt - U.S. Southern District of Iowa

Chief Judge Juan R. Torruella, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Judge Volney V. Brown Jr. Former US Magistrate,  Los Angeles (1982 to 1995)

Judge Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Court, Boston

U.S. Senior District Judge of Denver Judge John L. Kane Jr.

Judge James Gray - Recently retired from the bench to campaign for Congress on an end the Drug War platform.

Federal Judge of the 8th Circuit, Myron Bright

Federal Judge of the 8th Circuit, Donald P. Lay

Federal Judge of the D.C. Circuit, Harry T. Edwards

Federal Judge of the D.C. Circuit, Stanley Sporkin

Federal Judge of Illinois, Central District, Harold A. Baker

Federal Judge of New York, Southern District, Morris E. Lasker

Federal Judge Whitman Knapp of Manhattan, has refused to preside over drug cases, opposing mandatory minimum sentencing.

Judge Frances Howard, B.C., Canada

Professor of Law Jeffrey M. Blum

American Judges Association

Commentary from Federal Trials

Federal Judge Harold Greene, of Washington, ruled that important elements of the mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenders were unconstitutional.

Federal Judge Richard Neville, of Chicago; March 1996 he told USA Today, the markup on illegal drugs and their enormous profits to sellers create ten replacements for every offender thrown in prison. No matter how may we put in jail, that isn't going to change.

U.S. Magistrate Peter Nimkoff of Miami resigned from the bench do to the relentless erosion of rights and the governmental abuses which he daily confronted. In a press conference in 1986 he said, There are two constitutions - one for criminal cases generally and another for drug cases, which, invites police officers to behave like criminals. And they do. The Miami Herald did not cover this resignation or the press conference.

Judge James Paine of Florida

Federal Judge Richard Posner, told USA Today, It is nonsense that we should be devoting so many law-enforcement resources to marijuana. I am skeptical of a society that is so tolerant of alcohol and cigarettes should come down so hard on marijuana use and send people to prison for life without parole... Prison terms in America have become appallingly long, especially for conduct that, arguable, should not be criminal at all . . . Only decriminalization is a sure route to a lower crime rate . . .

Federal Judge George Pratt of the 2nd Circuit said of police searches in the Buffalo, N.Y. airport, It appears that they have sacrificed the Fourth Amendment by detaining 590 innocent people in order to arrest 10 who are not - all in the name of the 'war on drugs.' When, pray tell, will it end? Where are we going? (To Reason Magazine, February 1994)

Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, defied the federal mandatory sentence by giving a drug offender a 13 month sentence, instead of the mandated 10 or more years.

Judge Robert W. Sweet, District Judge in New York City; served as an Assistant US Attorney and as Deputy Mayor of New York City under John Lindsay; a graduate of Yale and of Yale Law School. Congress should end the criminalization of marijuana, which is now widely acknowledged to be without deleterious effect. That reform alone would take 450,000 arrests out of the system.

US District Judge Vaughn Walker, of San Francisco contends that decriminalization is the key to solving our nation's current drug problem.

Federal Judge Jack Weinstein, of Brooklyn, has refused to take drug cases because he opposes mandatory minimum sentences. He said that he had a, sense of depression about much of the cruelty I have been party to in connection with the war on drugs.

US District Judge Thomas Wiseman, quoted in The Tennessean, We've just about lost a generation of young people. We're building new prison beds at the rate of about 1000 a week and we're still overcrowded... We've spent $100 billion on the war on drugs and we're losing it.

If you have a dissenting opinion of a Federal Judge, please mail a copy to:

November Coalition
795 South Cedar
Colville, WA 99114
(509) 684-1550
Webmaster: tom@november.org

We will post it promptly.

[vannrox]

This site generally has concerns related toward the war on Drugs. However the behavior of the Federal Judges is noteworthy.

[Fast 1975]

The federal sentences for drug crimes is ridiculous- The vast majority of the crimes prosecuted by the US Attorney's office are drugs, guns, and white collar crime. I commend them for not imposing these draconian sentences on non-violent offenders that are incarcerated at a hefty taxpayer expense. Leave the tough sentencing to state courts handling murders and rapes.

[Gee Wally]

I commend them for not imposing these draconian sentences on non-violent offenders that are incarcerated at a hefty taxpayer expense.

Judges who refuse to follow the law should be impeached. Judges are appointed for life and never have to stand for election. People who cheer these judges are cheering tyranny. If you don't like the law, get Congress to change it. That's the constitutional way to do things.

The American Revolution had its roots in the principle of lex rex - which essentially meant, is the king above the law? The answer was - and still is - NO!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I object to mandatory minimum sentences, as do several conservative Judges. One of the reasons we have judges is to apply the law in such a manner as to achieve justice. Mandatory minimums at least occasionally wind up imposing an unjust harsh sentence. Sentencing recommendation can achieve the goal of locking up criminals so as to protect the public. If a judge wants to vary from the recommendation require the judge to issue a written opinion as to why the recommendation is inappropriate in this case and allow both the defense and prosecutor an automatic right of appeal. Any judge who has his decisions consistently overruled on appeal should be fired. Any judge who has his decision consistently upheld would likely make a good candidate for an appeals court position. With these rules most judges would simply follow the recommendation except for unusual circumstances and an appeal if either party thinks it unfair would allow for the opportunity to correct a mistake. A judge who thinks he can simply ignore the recommendations should quickly be removed from the bench.

[Henrietta]

God bless these judges...end the War on Drugs (really the War on Liberty cleverly disguised as the War on Drugs...)

Remember kids, the War on Drugs gave us "No Knock" raids and highway roadblocks.

[eFudd]

If you have manditory sentencing, you do not need a judge.

I for one do not like the concept of one size fits all.

We should try it out in shoe stores to see if it works before we implement it in the Judiciary.

[RipSawyer]

The principal is well understood. Unfortunately, the very law itself has been perverted. We have mountains of law which are in violation of the constitution. All statutory law which violates the constitution is automatically null and void but who is going to declare it null and void? If the congress which is sworn to uphold the constitution passes laws in conflict with the constitution then who but the judges can do anything to correct the situation? It all seems like a catch 22 to me. Richard Nixon once made a statement to the effect that people cannot decide for themselves what laws to obey and not to obey but he did not address the fact that even then, and much more so today, we are plagued with laws which conflict with other laws so that no man could obey all of them even if he could somehow be aware of all of them. Face it, the current government does not want the laws obeyed, they want to make it impossible to obey the law so that noone can be a law-abiding citizen and the law becomes whatever is convenient for those who wield power.