The Sick Results Of Mandatory Sentencing -- The Case Of Clarence Aaron
There are people for whom "lock 'em up and throw away the key!" makes sense. But there are also those in jail like Clarence Aaron -- serving three life terms for a small-time college cocaine deal. Seth Ferranti, a prisoner himself, locked up at age 22 for 25 years and four months for a non-violent drug offense writes on Alternet:
This is a simple truth: the United States is the only country in the first world that imposes life sentences to teenagers for small-time, non-violent drug offenses. In fact, the American legal system does so with alarming regularity, spending $40 billion a year to lock up hundreds of thousands of low-level dealers. The practice began when Ronald Reagan declared a "War on Drugs" in 1986, and has spread steadily since then. The following year, Congress enacted its federal mandatory sentencing guidelines, which automatically buried tens of thousands of low-level, non-violent drug offenders in the belly of the beast for decades--even for multiple life terms. Just ask Clarence Aaron, inmate number 05070-003.At the age of 24, Aaron was sentenced to three life terms for his role in a cocaine deal. That's effectively three times the sentence imposed upon Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in 2010. Aaron was a student and football player at Southern University in Baton Rouge. He'd never been arrested. In 1992, he made the mistake of being present for the sale of nine kilograms of cocaine and the conversion of one kilo of coke to crack. Aaron would have earned $1,500 for introducing the buyer and seller. He never actually touched the drugs.
Though his role was minor, Aaron received the longest sentence of anyone involved in the conspiracy when he refused to cooperate with authorities. His case gained national attention in 1999, when he appeared in "Snitch," a PBS Frontline documentary about prisoners serving long sentences after refusing to turn informant. Since then, a loose, bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and civil rights activists have championed efforts to have President Obama commute his sentence. But it's now 2012 and Clarence Aaron is still locked up, despite the fact that the Federal Prosecutor's Office that tried the case and the sentencing judge have supported immediate commutation. US District Court Judge Charles Butler, who sentenced Aaron, recently wrote, "Looking through the prism of hindsight, and considering the many factors argued by the defendant that were not present at the time of his initial sentencing, one can argue that a less harsh sentence might have been more equitable."
To say the least. So what happens to a prisoner if the presiding judge states that a sentence should have been "more equitable"? Nothing. The Constitution provides the President with the authority to grant clemency to federal offenders, but Presidents, afraid of tarnishing their tough-on-crime credentials, have used clemency sparingly (and usually to help well-connected, politically-powerful prisoners, like Scooter Libby or Marc Rich). And so the federal prison population has exploded from around 25,000 prisoners in 1980 to almost 225,000 now, mostly because of the War on Drugs. Applications to the Office of the Pardon Attorney, the branch of the Justice Department that reviews commutation requests, have reached thousands each year.
Not surprisingly, the forked tongue in the Oval Office talked a good game about the awfulness of mandatory minimum sentencing while campaigning for office, but is on track to be the President who has pardoned the fewest number of people -- 23, including one commuted sentence.
I had never heard of this person before. Thanks for posting his story.
What a tragedy.
jerry at June 13, 2012 9:23 AM
"Despite the fact that the Federal Prosecutor's Office that tried the case and the sentencing judge have supported immediate commutation."
Well why did the prosecutor try the case, and the judge hand down that harsh of a sentence? They were the people who decided to give him three life terms after he was convicted so I don't see why they're complaining now.
Of course the president hasn't given very many pardons. Each one he hands out is a potential landmine, and whether a pardon will come back to haunt him after he's issued it is determained by factors almost entirely out of his control. Mainly the conduct of the people he's pardoned and whether they reoffend.
I'm suprised that he's handed out any pardons. It would be smarter to wait until he's about to leave the white house either this term or next term to do so.
No other president has been willing to fall on their sword in an election year so some college kid who decided to get into the coke business could get out of prison a few years early. Why isn't it fair to hold Obama to the same standard?
Mike Hunter at June 13, 2012 9:39 AM
In 1992, he made the mistake of being present for the sale of nine kilograms of cocaine and the conversion of one kilo of coke to crack.
That's some shitty luck. How in the hell did that happen?
Aaron would have earned $1,500 for introducing the buyer and seller. He never actually touched the drugs.
Oh. My sympathy is... Huh, where did it go?
He did something risky - because you might go to jail for 20 years for doing it - for a pissant payday, no less - got caught, and now is doing the required time.
That's not to say the sentence is proportionate. But I won't go so far as to say "Tragedy".
Unix-Jedi at June 13, 2012 11:00 AM
(20+.)
Unix-Jedi at June 13, 2012 11:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/13/the_sick_result.html#comment-3230765">comment from Unix-JediBut, what is the purpose of this sentence? What is the reason taxpayers are paying to house a man for his entire life in jail?
Freedom is precious and we cannot take it from people lightly or vengefully.
I also don't agree with the government prohibiting consenting adults from selling or using drugs. Why is it the government's business what you put in your brain or whether you trade powder or plant matter for money with another adult citizen who wishes to have that transaction with you?
Amy Alkon
at June 13, 2012 11:48 AM
While agree it's a pointless sentence - and that mandatory ones are a miscarriage of justice in themselves - I don't think nine kilograms is "small time".
Sigivald at June 13, 2012 2:30 PM
Yet another reason to vote for Gary Johnson....
Dwatney at June 13, 2012 4:26 PM
9 kilos? I find myself lacking in sympathy for him.
Lauragr at June 13, 2012 4:30 PM
While I have to semi-agree with you, the next question is: What if it had been 9 grams? Would you take a different view? What about 9 decigrams? What about 9 hectograms?
What if he had been licensed by the state to sell marijuana? What about alcohol?
What about a licensed pharmacist?
What your view be if it was 9 kilograms of Viagra?
Just asking?
Jim P. at June 14, 2012 12:18 AM
Don't Presidents mostly do their pardoning right before they leave office? So there's hope yet.
NicoleK at June 14, 2012 12:35 AM
If the ones selling a drug are not coercing anyone to buy it, and the ones buying it are not coercing anyone to sell it, why is it anyone else's business?
The criminal "justice" system does more damage to the lives of drug users and their families than the drugs ever did.
A principle every child should learn by age 5: Some things are... None Of My Business.
Ken R at June 14, 2012 1:12 AM
I'll just note that Scooter Libby, whatever you think of him or his politics, was convicted of lying to a Federal Agent, not the "crime" of outing Valerie Pflame, which was actually committed by the never-charged Richard Armitage.
A principle every adult should live by is the golden rule. They can lie to you with impunity, but the reverse is not true. Your only defense is to refuse to answer their questions.
MarkD at June 14, 2012 5:07 AM
I do have another comment for mandatory sentences -- I sort of have to agree with Cam Edwards' (NRA News) suggestion.
Every state's United States Attorneys Office should make it a point to prosecute 5-10 of that state's walking crime waves under the fed's, instead of state's laws. I'm talking about the types like this guy. Even, or especially, those with mental issues and a violent history.
The fed doesn't really have the good time and parole like the states do. There are some people that don't quite qualify to be treated like a barn dog, taken out behind the barn and shot in the head, but need many years to get to the point they can walk around in public.
Jim P. at June 14, 2012 8:02 PM
I may be misreading, but the quoted article doesn't say his excessive sentence was because of a mandatory sentence. It seems to have been a discretionary sentence that was extra long because he wouldn't become and informant, and the judge now regrets it due to additional information, not that he was forced by law to give a longer sentence than he thought was appropriate.
As to why Obama, or any other politician is reluctant to give pardons, two words, Willie Horton. Gigantic potential downside, very little political upside.
That being said, all drugs should be legal and we shouldn't be clogging our courts and prisons with these cases.
clinky at June 14, 2012 11:01 PM
I think that distributors,dealers and makers of these illicit drugs should be flattened. I think that people only having a small amount (personal use) should not be prosecuted wasting court time.
I don't care if they are non-violent. So was Bernie Madoff. Dealers and distributors do harm to society. Calling them non-violent is not a freebie pass in my book.
LauraGr at June 15, 2012 2:27 PM
"Harm to society" is a rather open ended sort of thing.
Prostitutes do "harm" to society, when families break up over men or women hiring them.
Bars do "harm" when someone drives after becoming intoxicated there.
Fast food and video games and t.v. do "harm" when people gorge themselves and sit in front of the t.v. getting fatter and costing society money and time for their treatment.
Dealers and distributors do "harm" to society when their users behave in any of the above listed destructive ways.
That their "jobs" are illegal weighs against them I'll grant.
However in every example above, people are bearing the consequences of their choices, some of which endanger others. A free society however, cannot exist without choice, including choices which place others at risk.
The only criminal elements above SHOULD be the ones that pose a direct and immenent danger, such as driving while intoxicated (or high). If someone is otherwised engaged in behavior that may be "SELF" destructive, but does not pick my pocket nor break my leg, then a free society must allow that person to destroy themselves.
So tell me Laura, which is the more harmful to "society". The use of drugs by consenting adults?
Or the increasing abuses of and restrictions upon our liberties, "for our own good"?
I weigh in by saying that I would rather live at risk in a free society, with the "harm" done to it by prostitutes and drugs and alcohol, than in the sanitized world where we are always kept safe from harm of any kind, by the watchful eye and guiding hand of a big brother or Leviathan.
Robert at June 18, 2012 5:17 AM
Leave a comment