Life Without Parole: The Penalty For Five Senior Citizens Who Sold Pot
Why should the government be allowed to tell you what sort of plant you can grow and sell to other consenting adults? Why should they be allowed to take away your freedom for growing and selling plants they say can't be grown or sold?
If you break down the laws against pot and the punishments for violating them to their simplest terms you get an idea of how terribly absurd and terribly wrong they are.
Yet these five men are rotting in jail, in poor health, and will likely remain there for the rest of their lives because they sold pot or were alleged to. Are these really people we should be paying to keep locked up? Kristen Gwynne writes for Alternet:
Right now, five adults await death in prison for non-violent, marijuana-related crimes. Their names are John Knock, Paul Free, Larry Duke, William Dekle, and Charles "Fred" Cundiff. They are all more than 60 years old; they have all spent at least 15 years locked up for selling pot; and they are all what one might call model prisoners, serving life without parole....Michael Kennedy [3] of the Trans High Corporation has filed a legal petition [4] with the federal government seeking their clemency. Otherwise they will die behind bars for selling a drug 40% of American adults have admitted to using, 50% of Americans want legal, and two states have already legalized for adult use. Since these men were convicted of these crimes many years ago, public opinion and policy related to marijuana have shifted greatly. Should these five non-violent senior-citizen offenders die behind bars for a crime Americans increasingly believe should not even be a crime?
1. John Knock, 65, has been incarcerated for more than 16 years. The only evidence against him was the testimony of informants; Knock was convicted of conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana. The judge sentenced him to 20 years for money laundering plus not one, but two terms of life-without-parole -- a punishment typically reserved for murderers. Despite the uniquely unjust sentence, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court denied his pleas for reconsideration via appeal or court order.
Waiting for death in jail, Knock suffers from chronic sinus problems linked to an untreated broken nose. Due to circulatory problems, one of his ankles swells to twice its size. Knock also suffers from what the legal petition called "untreated" hearing and vision problems. Easing some of his pain are visits from his family and his participation in prison programs. He has taught home building and physical education inside the prison that has become his home. According to the legal petition, he is assured employment and a home should his sentence be commuted.
...While these men have all spent many years behind bars for crimes they were convicted of many years ago, the same draconian punishments are handed down to marijuana criminals -- young and old -- to this day. Conspiracy charges, combined with mandatory minimums for marijuana sale and firearms charges, can quickly add up to decades behind bars. Should anyone in the entire criminal operation have a gun (legal or not), everyone involved can be charged with firearm possession during a drug offense, a five-year mandatory minimum that can reach 20 if the person is charged with continuing criminal enterprise -- a long-term, large-scale operation. In the end, these sentences are often not applied, but used to encourage guilty pleas in exchange for a lesser sentence.
Marijuana prisoner Chris Williams [5] is an example of one such case. He was recently facing a mandatory minimum of 85 to 92 years behind bars for providing medical marijuana in Montana, where it is legal. Citing a moral opposition to plea bargains forced by the threat of a lifetime in jail, WIlliams rejected a deal that would have drastically reduced his sentence by cutting away mandatory minimums. Then, this Tuesday, federal prosecutors agreed to drop six of eight of Williams' charges, provided he waive his constitutional right to appeal. Now Williams faces a mandatory minimum of five years for the firearm-related charge, and another five for distribution.
"With the rest of my life literally hanging in the balance, I simply could not withstand the pressure any longer," Williams said in a statement. "If Judge Christensen shows mercy and limits my sentence to the five-year mandatory minimum, I could be present at my 16-year-old son's college graduation. This would most likely be impossible had I rejected the latest compromise."
meanwhile, back at the ranch, a guy kills his grnadmother with a hammer, and then goes on to serve only 18 years for it... eventually deciding that the best way to leave this world at 62... is to star his hous on fire and then kill the volunteer firemen when they come to fight it.
I'm sure this makes sense to someone.
SwissArmyD at December 24, 2012 11:20 PM
"Why should the government be allowed to tell you what sort of plant you can grow and sell to other consenting adults? Why should they be allowed to take away your freedom for growing and selling plants they say can't be grown or sold?"
Oh, crap. Here we go again.
So, if you go blind because I got confused and sold you weed with weed killer on it, no mas?
There's no way in hell you're doing without consumer protection. It's just that right now, people want to get high, screw everything else.
UNTIL something bad happens, THEN the crying for more laws starts over.
Radwaste at December 25, 2012 9:53 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/25/life_without_pa.html#comment-3530499">comment from RadwasteHave you heard of someone being killed by something they bought in a bake sale?
Laws against everything do not protect us.
The government frequently misses harmful situations in regulated products.
If someone does harm to you, you can sue. Also, selling a harmful product is a poor business strategy.
Amy Alkon
at December 25, 2012 9:56 AM
Why would anyone put weed killer on their weed? That's just crazy talk.
Steve Daniels at December 25, 2012 10:03 AM
>>There's no way in hell you're doing without consumer protection.
You truly have no clue as to the reality of the current situation. There is currently a huge underground pot(drug) market with no so-called consumer protection, and gee people aren't dying in droves, going blind from smoking weedkiller or any of the other "dangers" you are so fearful will suddenly come to pass if we were to legalize pot. There is one basic consumer protection however; if you sell crap weed or poison your customers, people will not buy from you. It's bad for business. It is amazing how well this works in practice. Repeat business means more money.
>>It's just that right now, people want to get high, screw everything else.
Yes, yes, obviously every single person who smokes pot is a crazy druggie willing to risk their life, day in, day out for a little high.
I'm sorry but that world only exists in your head. The vast majority of people who smoke pot are productive members of society, who make rational decisions concerning their personal well-being. They understand that their local pot dealer is going to sell them exactly what they wish to buy. They've probably know him/her for years and have a solid business relationship. Most people who smoke pot do not travel to the ghetto to buy pot from a stranger, they get it from a friend. Your fear-mongering only works on the ignorant. But then, that does give you a lot of people to work with.
Assholio at December 25, 2012 10:25 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/25/life_without_pa.html#comment-3530534">comment from AssholioAssholio, very well-put.
Exactly, exactly, exactly.
Amy Alkon
at December 25, 2012 10:37 AM
Although I am peeved we have to pay taxes to support the sentences, I have little sympathy for those guys. Or for anyone that knowingly, brazenly breaks the laws and then snivels about what they are missing on the outside. Tough shit.
Oh yeah, Merry Christmas!
LauraGr at December 25, 2012 2:07 PM
The reason they participated in selling pot is that the profits are high because it is illegal. If R.J. Reynolds and it's growers could sell it legally, the real cost of a pack joints would be about a dollar, not counting the taxes that would be levied by the state and federal governments.
So now we have these people locked up for a victimless crime at the cost of about $30K per year. How much do you make per year?
Jim P. at December 25, 2012 8:45 PM
Put your money where your mouth is. Buy Adderall from a street vendor.
An argument from incredulity is always fallacious.
All please spare me the ridiculous idea that someone will report bad illegal drugs in a controlled manner. That's just plain stupid. No pothead WILL sue a dealer, because of the statutes involved AND because the dealer doesn't have any identifiable assets tied to what is, knock your head around and remember, illegal trade. The intertubes are full of confused people calling the cops because their weed was bad, stolen, etc.
This blog is NOT about evidence-based anything on drug issues. If it was, then the discussion would be about how to commercialize the drug of interest: who makes it, how quality is REALLY checked (aside from "wow, dude!" commentary), how it's distributed, and notably, how the flow of money would change from some scumbag to the 7-11 counter.
No. Fuck that. Drug users just want to get high. Where's the evidence there? Laws are broken, drug empires are enabled, thousands are killed in Mexico and elsewhere -- rather than anyone do actual work to show a return on investment.
Victimless? Total bullshit. It's just out of view - although, Jim P., I'm surprised that you've said this considering your Fast and Furious knowledge. It's not like those guns went to put deer meat on a Mexican table.
Radwaste at December 26, 2012 6:20 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/25/life_without_pa.html#comment-3531238">comment from RadwastePut your money where your mouth is. Buy Adderall from a street vendor.
I nearly had to, thanks to the government, which cares the most about seeing that the ingredients are curtailed lest somebody get an A instead of the B they'd normally get.
No pothead needs to sue a dealer, and it was the government, not the illegal growers putting horrible stuff in weed.
If drugs were legal, they'd be regulated like everything else, which means there would be pretend safety (like the way the government didn't stop salmonella in eggs, etc.), but the safety of the product would best be guaranteed by the free market.
And yes, people like to get high. I hate pot, but I like to get a little buzz on from a glass of sauvignon blanc. My friends who are potheads -- two of them, I can think of -- are two brilliant, highly lauded professors. One created an important medical invention and the other is the top person in his field. Neither smokes pot on the job; they both take a load off at home, at night. Oh, of course they smoke out of a vaporizer, so as not to damage their lungs.
Amy Alkon
at December 26, 2012 6:36 AM
You're right -- it isn't a victimless crime, but that's because the substance is illegal.
When was that last time you heard about gang wars going on about the location of a liquor store? Or someone was killed for a pack of cigarettes?
How many times have the cops done a no-knock warrant on the wrong house, because the neighbor was suspected of making his own beer?
If you study a little bit of history, for some reason the violence went up with the implementation of the 18th Amendment, and down after the 21st Amendment. Strange how that worked, isn't it?
Jim P. at December 26, 2012 8:49 AM
>>All please spare me the ridiculous idea that someone will report bad illegal drugs in a controlled manner.
As far as I can tell, this ridiculous idea came from you. In the real world, bad drug dealers go out of business. Economics is king.
>>An argument from incredulity is always fallacious.
You must not read your own posts.
>>This blog is NOT about evidence-based anything on drug issues.If it was, then the discussion would be about how to commercialize the drug of interest: who makes it, how quality is REALLY checked (aside from "wow, dude!" commentary), how it's distributed, and notably, how the flow of money would change from some scumbag to the 7-11 counter.
This has already been done. It's called the black market and it is far more sophisticated then you'd like to believe.
>>No. Fuck that. Drug users just want to get high.
I'm sorry you are unable to see past your myopic view of humans and intoxicants. The vast majority of people who use drugs, or any intoxicant, are not the crazy druggies you wish they were.
Assholio at December 26, 2012 8:59 AM
This is the recreational pharmaceutical analog to gun control. It does not work, and good people get put away.
Incidentally, I have not heard of increased debauchery in Colorado and Washington since Nov. 6.
mpetrie98 at December 28, 2012 12:15 PM
Leave a comment