PDA

View Full Version : Life sentence for buying marijuana?



Hans
09-03-2014, 08:41 PM
Clearly something is broken when a Missouri man named Jeff Mizanskey can be sentenced to die in prison for purchasing seven pounds of marijuana. With two nonviolent marijuana convictions already on his record, Jeff received life without parole under Missouri's three strikes law.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/02/opinion/vanita-gupta-marijuana-life-sentence/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

While I agree automatic life without parole under a three strike law should be reserved for those strikes that are a bit more "serious" than marijuana possession, I do have to wonder why he needed a whole 7 pounds of it?

That is a large amount of weed and I doubt that was for "personal" use.

And I just found some more information, which shows how the media is spinning this around and around, without saying what really happened and more importantly WHEN.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/10/missouri_man_serving_life_in_p.php

The Left Sock
09-03-2014, 08:48 PM
Funny, I was just reading about this story, when this thread suddenly appeared!

This guy fell under the 3-strikes rule, and his 3 crimes were all for marijuana possession. He was never convicted of any violent crimes.

So, is sentencing someone to life without parole for three pot possession charges a reasonable thing? I don't think so.

Official Cat of Soonet
09-03-2014, 08:48 PM
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs7/3907794_o.gif

Anapeg
09-03-2014, 10:54 PM
Who gets do decide what convictions fall into what category? Is this then to be cut and dried or do you think it might serve better to be watered down further as well? Where would it stop? Stop breaking the law and you will not collect strikes. Is that not simpler?

The Left Sock
09-03-2014, 11:04 PM
The three strikes rule is generally intended to put dangerous felons away for life if they continue to offend. It was primarily designed for violent offenders. Somehow, in the war on drugs, simple pot possession got ratcheted up to result in felony charges.

There is no justifiable rationale to ending a person's life over pot possession, regardless of how many times they offend.

Anapeg
09-04-2014, 01:12 AM
The three strikes rule is generally intended to put dangerous felons away for life if they continue to offend. It was primarily designed for violent offenders. Somehow, in the war on drugs, simple pot possession got ratcheted up to result in felony charges.

There is no justifiable rationale to ending a person's life over pot possession, regardless of how many times they offend.

Is possession of pot illegal? As long as it is it is a crime. Three charges and say buh bye. Things are either against the law or they are not. There are no grey areas. He was charged and sentenced, three times. Don't like or agree with the law, fight to change it, do not keep breaking it.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

The Left Sock
09-04-2014, 09:10 AM
Insanity: not understanding that the 3 strike law was designed to protect the public from dangerous repeat offenders, not to end the lives of people who commit non-violent crimes.

What, so if a prostitute gets busted three times, they should get a life sentence?

Aristotle
09-04-2014, 09:29 AM
Anyone have an update on the pregnant fetus?

Sock?

Official Cat of Soonet
09-04-2014, 04:39 PM
If I know there is a three strikes law and I have 2 already, whether I agree or not with it, I'm not breaking the law again. This guy deserves it for being so stupid. I don't feel sorry for this guy one bit.

Anapeg
09-05-2014, 12:24 AM
Insanity: not understanding that the 3 strike law was designed to protect the public from dangerous repeat offenders, not to end the lives of people who commit non-violent crimes.

What, so if a prostitute gets busted three times, they should get a life sentence?

See the Cats post number 9. Stop breaking the law and you don't have to go to prison. A crime is a crime, plain and simple. I went into jail once, I did not like it and never did anything to ever get me into that position ever again. When do people finally stand up and take possession of their wrongs instead of trying to make me out to be the bad guy? You expect the taxpaying public to have a heart when it is those on drugs busting into our homes and mugging people to get another spliff? Bull!

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 12:35 AM
There is a difference between committing a crime and paying the price for it, or being sentenced to life in prison without parole.

A simple pot possession charge carries what kind of penalty? Does that come anywhere close to a life sentence, regardless of how many offences the person has committed?

Let's get real here.

Official Cat of Soonet
09-05-2014, 12:45 AM
See the Cats post number 9. Stop breaking the law and you don't have to go to prison. A crime is a crime, plain and simple. I went into jail once, I did not like it and never did anything to ever get me into that position ever again. When do people finally stand up and take possession of their wrongs instead of trying to make me out to be the bad guy? You expect the taxpaying public to have a heart when it is those on drugs busting into our homes and mugging people to get another spliff? Bull!

Exactly. If three charges doesn't teach you anything then nothing will. If you have a problem with marijauna laws then let that be your target. Until it becomes legal, you are breaking the law. I love the three strikes law.

Anapeg
09-05-2014, 01:32 AM
There is a difference between committing a crime and paying the price for it, or being sentenced to life in prison without parole.

A simple pot possession charge carries what kind of penalty? Does that come anywhere close to a life sentence, regardless of how many offences the person has committed?

Let's get real here.


Was there a law broken?

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 02:54 AM
Was there a law broken?

Do people get a life sentence in North America for pot possession?

You're not the only one capable of asking inane questions.

Anapeg
09-05-2014, 03:01 AM
Do people get a life sentence in North America for pot possession?

You're not the only one capable of asking inane questions.

Was there not in fact a law broken? Simple, straightforward question.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 03:07 AM
It's a ridiculous question.

The issue is whether or not people should be given life sentences for it. The legality of it has never been in question.

Anapeg
09-05-2014, 03:49 AM
It's a ridiculous question.

The issue is whether or not people should be given life sentences for it. The legality of it has never been in question.

In which case it was dealt with in the prescribed manner. We elect officials to set our laws and penalties. It is within said law the charges were laid and the penalties weighed. Is it the fault of the law makers, the police charged with maintaining said law or the fault of the judiciary for handing down the sentence prescribed by the law that this individual was sentenced to life in prison for possession of seven pounds of cannabis? No, nary a one is in err other than the criminal who was foolish enough to be caught not once, not twice, but three times with the substance. All the while knowing full well the penalty laid down by law. If you disagree with a law you lobby to have it altered or scrubbed but you do not for any reason continue breaking the law hoping someone else will feel sorry enough for you to plead your case. If you feel the sentence unjust fight to have it changed or enter politics and change it from within.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 05:16 AM
Life seems pretty harsh for simple pot possession. All three of his were for felony drug possession though.

Simple possession, less than 35g, isn't a felony in Missouri.

This guy was a dealer ,one of his convictions involved selling drugs to an undercover cop.

No sympathy here.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 12:53 PM
"Between one and 35 grams and 30 kilograms. A violation is a felony, punishable with a fine of up to $5,000, up to seven years in prison, or both. (Mo. Ann. Stat. 195.202(3).)"

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/marijuana-laws-and-penalties/missouri.htm

Seven years maximum vs. a life sentence. Therein lies the problem.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 01:04 PM
"Between one and 35 grams and 30 kilograms

The word one in there makes no sense, especially when you read the line preceding it. I'd say it's a typo. http://norml.org/laws/item/missouri-penalties-2

Seven years max for a single offense. 3rd time's the charm though.

Nonetheless, the guy was a dealer. Though the sentence does seem harsh I can't find any sympathy for him.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 01:08 PM
It's the principle of the thing. You do a crime, you do the time. In this case, he should be looking at 7 years maximum, not life. It's not 'justice' to simply throw away the key.

It adds up to capital punishment, for pot possession. How can anyone think that is reasonable?

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 01:14 PM
I can't say it seems reasonable. It's the law there though. Three felonies you're out.

The spin that it was simple possession is misleading though. You don't buy by the pound for personal use.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 01:19 PM
When I say, 'simple possession', I mean that all three of his charges were simply for possession. He didn't do an armed robbery, and then get caught with some pot. In fact, he didn't commit a single violent felony. His life was defaulted over three different charges involving pot.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 01:21 PM
In the eyes of the law selling pot to an undercover cop is not simple possession.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 01:25 PM
Selling an ounce of pot to a cop doesn't add up to a life sentence, either.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 01:26 PM
Getting caught 3 times in Missouri doing it does indeed add up to a life sentence.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 01:27 PM
And besides, he was sentenced to life for his third charge, which was simple possession.

Anapeg
09-05-2014, 01:35 PM
He is not being incarcerated for selling/using pot. he is being incarcerated for being foolish enough to do it three times. he displayed a callous disregard for the law and his freedom yet you fight to the death for his right to do so. You care more for this habitual criminals freedom than he does. See a problem here?

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 01:42 PM
Can't seem to help myself. Have this crazy need to see a sense of justice in my world.

Would be nice to forfeit all that, and not give a crap. Must be nice, to live without caring.

Anapeg
09-05-2014, 01:54 PM
Can't seem to help myself. Have this crazy need to see a sense of justice in my world.

Would be nice to forfeit all that, and not give a crap. Must be nice, to live without caring.

On the contrary, I do care and very much. I care for the children who may become involved with drugs, I also care about the crime rate in my city and more specifically my neighbourhood. I care for those the laws are meant to protect while you care for those we require protection from.

dancingqueen
09-05-2014, 01:55 PM
Well, it is the law where he lives, I don't think it's right, but he really should have considered the law where he lives before choosing to do what he did. I have sympathy, but I also cannot deny that he got what was coming to him.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 01:56 PM
Yeah, we need protection from a guy who plays with pot, but never committed a violent felony. We should make sure a guy like that never sees the streets again.

Our children are a lot safer. Unless, of course, they decide to experiment with something like pot, and get caught three times.

Igor
09-05-2014, 02:02 PM
It is called consequences for his actions! He knew the law. He knew the consequences. What is the point of laws if they are not upheld. Whether it be right, whether it be wrong, it is the law until it is changed.

When my children were told the rules and they chose to disobey, then they suffered the consequences. Whether they thought I was too strict or not, it was the rules. If I did not stick by my rules, my children would learn nothing of consequences.

Do the crime, do the time! Simple.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 02:02 PM
Can't seem to help myself. Have this crazy need to see a sense of justice in my world.There will always be laws we may not agree with but the man was sentenced appropriately. So unless you're for only some laws being enforced you should see justice here.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 02:05 PM
So, if the law is unreasonable and extreme, the answer is 'don't question it'?

If the police taze you and beat you because you didn't get out of your car fast enough for their liking, you had it coming?

Wow, it's startling how willing some people are to throw away their liberty. Or to condemn others to a life in prison, for non-violent crimes.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 02:08 PM
There will always be laws we may not agree with but the man was sentenced appropriately. So unless you're for only some laws being enforced you should see justice here.

Once again, the spirit of the 3 strikes law was intended to protect the public from violent re-offenders. It was never intended to permanently incarcerate non-violent offenders.

In the drunken tizzy of the 'war on drugs', different states ratcheted up the laws involving narcotics, and piggy-backed onto the 3 strikes law, resulting in what you see now.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 02:14 PM
So, if the law is unreasonable and extreme, the answer is 'don't question it'?Don't wait until breaking it 3 times to question it.

Not sure about the relevance of the tazing question.

Not sure who's throwing away their liberty.

Life in prison for a non violent crime does indeed seem extreme. Seems like a complete waste of money also. Some, myself included, don't put drug dealing firmly in the category of non-violent though.

How much time is appropriate for a non violent crime? Madoff's crime was non violent.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 02:18 PM
Well, Madoff was convicted on 11 federal felonies, and was given the maximum penalty of 150 years for it.

He wasn't tagged on the 3 strikes rule.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 02:23 PM
Madoff's crime was non violent though and 150 years is a life sentence. You suggested you're against condemning others to a life in prison, for non-violent crimes. So was Madoff's punishment too harsh?

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 02:25 PM
Not a valid comparison.

Barry Morris
09-05-2014, 02:40 PM
Madoff's crime was non violent though and 150 years is a life sentence. You suggested you're against condemning others to a life in prison, for non-violent crimes. So was Madoff's punishment too harsh?

He will likely get out on parole eventually.

This whole issue is part of American stupidity that leads to the highest incarceration rate in the world.

dancingqueen
09-05-2014, 02:42 PM
So, if the law is unreasonable and extreme, the answer is 'don't question it'?

Not in my position, though, like stupified pointed out, you don't have much chance challenging it after the fact. this three strike law should be challenged first, as a society.
personally, it is a failed law, and ought to be challenged. But frankly, a challenge is more promising coming from a community rather than from people already affected under the proposed law change.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 02:42 PM
He will likely get out on parole eventually.He can apply when 191 years old. I disagree with it being likely to happen.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 02:44 PM
Well, that's still a better fate than the only guy in the State of Missouri who is doing life without parole for non-violent crimes!

He doesn't have a release date.

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 02:49 PM
... this three strike law should be challenged first, as a society.
personally, it is a failed law, and ought to be challenged...
I agree it's a failed law. There are people doing life for shoplifting.

It was challenged and changed in California a few years back and a whole lot of people got released.

I'm for a 3 strike law but they really need to be a little more selective in what crimes qualify.

Drug dealing though should qualify IMO.

The Left Sock
09-05-2014, 02:53 PM
Even in light of the fact that a number of States are legalizing recreational use of marijuana?

Or do we break it down even further, and just apply the 3 strike rule to things like crystal meth, heroin, and cocaine?

Protecting society from the threat of repeated violence is just. Extinguishing lives because America has an insatiable appetite for escaping reality, is not just.

dancingqueen
09-05-2014, 04:15 PM
I agree it's a failed law. There are people doing life for shoplifting.

It was challenged and changed in California a few years back and a whole lot of people got released.

I'm for a 3 strike law but they really need to be a little more selective in what crimes qualify.

Drug dealing though should qualify IMO.

Do you think selling cigarettes to minors, or booze ought to be classified the same?
Why or why not?

BFLPE
09-05-2014, 04:29 PM
lol, good question.

The similarities are obvious, so are the differences.

I'll have to think about that one.

dancingqueen
09-05-2014, 05:01 PM
Admittedly, I am also on the fence over this....

The Left Sock
09-06-2014, 06:34 PM
Here is a different case, with different circumstances, but it does illustrate the blind aggression that has taken hold in certain corners of America, with regard to the war on drugs:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

The family in question was eventually let back into their own home, but this is an example of pure mindlessness, where justice should be.

They are seizing vehicles and homes that are connected to a drug crime, and using the proceeds to fund themselves! And the worse part is, the owners of the property don't even have to be involved in the crime itself, for them to seize their property.

Anyone want to take a stab at defending this little nugget of justice?

Anapeg
09-06-2014, 06:56 PM
Here is a different case, with different circumstances, but it does illustrate the blind aggression that has taken hold in certain corners of America, with regard to the war on drugs:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

The family in question was eventually let back into their own home, but this is an example of pure mindlessness, where justice should be.

They are seizing vehicles and homes that are connected to a drug crime, and using the proceeds to fund themselves! And the worse part is, the owners of the property don't even have to be involved in the crime itself, for them to seize their property.

Anyone want to take a stab at defending this little nugget of justice?

They proved their case, they had no knowledge of their sons involvement with drugs. Had they not been able to prove their point they would have lost the home. The system worked did it not? The authorities moved far to quickly and unadvisedly trying to bully their way in but other than that I see it as a happy ending. Happier still I wager when they sue and come away with millions for their trouble. This is more a problem with individuals abusing power than any thing else. The police in the States have the bit in their teeth and are running away uncontrolled.

The Left Sock
09-06-2014, 07:01 PM
The part that is alarming to me is that officers came to their house unannounced, and physically removed them, throwing them out onto to the street that day, and proceeded to turn off the power to the house, and bar the doors.

You would think if they had the intention of seizing the property there would be some kind of hearing, some means for presenting the case, before the seizure took place. Instead, the family was forcibly removed from the home, and had to fight their way back in. This is counter-intuitive to everything I understand about judicial process. It amounts to a police state, where people are automatically guilty, but can get their home back, if they can prove their innocence.

Anapeg
09-06-2014, 08:05 PM
The part that is alarming to me is that officers came to their house unannounced, and physically removed them, throwing them out onto to the street that day, and proceeded to turn off the power to the house, and bar the doors.

You would think if they had the intention of seizing the property there would be some kind of hearing, some means for presenting the case, before the seizure took place. Instead, the family was forcibly removed from the home, and had to fight their way back in. This is counter-intuitive to everything I understand about judicial process. It amounts to a police state, where people are automatically guilty, but can get their home back, if they can prove their innocence.

Could not agree more. As I typed, they will have to become accustomed to a much more comfortable lifestyle post court.

Aristotle
09-07-2014, 09:18 AM
The part that is alarming to me is that officers came to their house unannounced, and physically removed them,

Where does it say that?

The Left Sock
09-07-2014, 10:12 AM
"One day this past March, without warning, the government took his house away,"

Gee, if you would have read all the way to the fifth line of the story, you wouldn't be feeling so goofy right now.

Aristotle
09-07-2014, 01:55 PM
Here is the fifth line of the story: Jeff received life without parole under Missouri's three strikes law.

the line you quote is nowhere in the story. You have, once again,been caught in a lie

Anapeg
09-07-2014, 02:39 PM
Being a police force is naught but a means to an end it would seem. They have untold wealth, must be an accounting nightmare. They do have to account for it right?

Philadelphia officials seized more than 1,000 houses, about 3,300 vehicles and $44 million in cash, totaling $64 million in civil forfeitures over a 10-year period, according to the lawsuit.

Anapeg
09-07-2014, 02:47 PM
In the interest of due diligence and keeping in mind today's hands off and parenting in absentia policy of raising kids one would of necessity have to search every child's room nay, the whole house to guarantee one was not liable to lose their home. In all seriousness, a child could, for all intents and purposes do a favour for a chum by holding and you could well lose your home. All you have worked for, gone in an instant. So, spot searches all round and privacy be damned? This is a bit of an eye opener.

The Left Sock
09-07-2014, 07:27 PM
Here is the fifth line of the story: Jeff received life without parole under Missouri's three strikes law.

the line you quote is nowhere in the story. You have, once again,been caught in a lie

The link in post #50, genius.

Do try to keep up, will you?

The Left Sock
09-07-2014, 07:30 PM
To take the point even one step further.

If the police in Philadelphia can seize a parent's home, because one of their children had drugs, then to extend the logic one step further, they should be thinking about seizing entire apartment complexes, if one of the tenants has drugs in their apartment. Think of the money they could make doing that!

Aristotle
09-08-2014, 10:27 AM
The link in post #50, genius.

Do try to keep up, will you?

Oh, it wasn't in the article, but simply posted by a reader??

Even better!!

Your sources for news lately have been interesting, to say the least :) :) :)

official soonet pu$$ycat
09-08-2014, 10:37 AM
It should be in the rules that CNN links are strictly forbidden.

Aristotle
09-08-2014, 10:38 AM
It should be in the rules that CNN links are strictly forbidden.

or at the very least using some anonymous person's post in the comments section as "news"

official soonet pu$$ycat
09-08-2014, 10:40 AM
So I can post a comment here then link to it at a later date and pass it off as evidence. I kinda like this.

Aristotle
09-08-2014, 10:40 AM
So I can post a comment here then link to it at a later date and pass it off as evidence. I kinda like this.

Correct.

official soonet pu$$ycat
09-08-2014, 10:41 AM
Hey you quoted me too soon. Now I appear drunk before 10.

official soonet pu$$ycat
09-08-2014, 10:42 AM
Hey now its changed. Maybe I am drunk.