18-Year-Old Gets Two Years for One Joint

[chefmike]

18-Year-Old Gets Two Years for One Joint

Tony Newman

Thursday, March 22, marked the one-year anniversary of 18-year-old Mitchell Lawrence's imprisonment on a two-year jail sentence for selling about one joint's worth of marijuana to an undercover cop. Mitchell received two years of hard time because a heartless Great Barrington district attorney, David Capless, chose to prosecute the teen under the draconian drug-free school zone laws of Massachusetts, which carries a two-year mandatory minimum sentence.

The community of Great Barrington formed a grassroots organization, Concerned Citizens for Appropriate Justice, that has spent the last two years fighting for justice on behalf of Mitchell Lawrence and other teenagers, who have been the targets of the poorly crafted and ineffective mandatory school zone laws of Massachusetts. They took out a quarter-page ad in their local paper, The Berkshire Eagle, on Sunday, timed with Mitchell's one-year anniversary of going to jail.

The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) is working to educate people about the Mitchell Lawrence injustice! You can view a short video of ours on YouTube. DPA's Anthony Papa has an informative piece on Mitchell's case and the need to reform these ineffective and inhumane laws.

links contained in the article can be found here-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-newman/18yearold-gets-two-year_b_44313.html

[panama_red]

Just pathetic. :x

[Dkg]

and the moral of the story; Don't Sell Drugs.

[BlackAdder]

But its okay for the government to sell drugs like mad???


Do you remember a few years ago the CIA was caught peddling cocaine??

[Master_A]

good job, if you do or sell drugs you should be shot.

[Trogdor]

As I always said....the so-called war on drugs is a JOKE.

[peggygee]

That is quite a severe sentence, however there may be more to the
story, this may not be that person's only offense. Further the judges do
have some latititude with sentencing.

Though in a school zone, I am highly inclined to go with the maximum
sentencing as well.

[Quinn]

and the moral of the story; Don't Sell Drugs.

I must have missed something then because I thought the moral of the story was "don't get caught selling drugs."

-Quinn

[Caleigh]

always the pragmatist Quinn?

[Aragon21]

That is quite a severe sentence, however there may be more to the
story, this may not be that person's only offense. Further the judges do
have some latititude with sentencing.

Though in a school zone, I am highly inclined to go with the maximum
sentencing as well.

Actually Peggy, the judge has no latitude when it comes to minimum sentencing. It is up to the prosecutor to decide what law(s) the offender is being charged with where minimums are concerned. This is why you often see murder cases include 1st degree, 2nd degree, and involuntary...it allows the jury to weigh the severity of the crime and allow for leniency based on the circumstances.

The prosecutor could have chosen another law to charge the defendent under, but appears to have chosen the harshest. As you said we don't know the defendent's priors and the full story here. If, for example, this was a sting setup after a parent complained that a child was solicited, then throw the book at him. :evil:

[DJ_Asia]

Bravo...I for one can rest easy knowing that this girl is behind bars :roll:

[hwbs]

its pretty horrible...all depends on your lawyer....i had a friend that got caught with 40 pills of "X"... this is when lawmakers were really trying to throw the book at these sellers....he didnt do a single day behind bars..

[Kriss]

But its okay for the government to sell drugs like mad???Do you remember a few years ago the CIA was caught peddling cocaine??

:rock2 . I always thought that C.I.A. stands for Cocaine Into America!


good job, if you do or sell drugs you should be shot.

It's NOT a drug, it's a PANACEA fool!

[pharroh79]

I think it's a messed up society when a kid gets two years for selling a joint and we have petofiles and murders getting less time. There are over 2 million people incarcerated in the US. The war on drugs is a war on the citizens of the US. I don't see them taking down cartels, just under privelged people who can't get decent jobs. Its a way for the government to oppress minorities and some politician to get rich. These jails make big money. I'm not saying everyone in there is a victim however it's filled with young men in their 20's-30's who are not violent and in the prime of their life. It also forces people to get involved in gangs and violent activity. If the government didn't want people selling drugs they would stop the import and believe me they can if they want. But thats not good buissness for them.

[chefmike]

The war on drugs reached the pinnacle of cruelty when 18-year-old Mitchell Lawrence was sentenced to two years in jail for selling a teaspoonful of marijuana to an undercover police officer for $20.

On June 30, 2004, detective Felix Aguirre, employed by the Drug Task Force, was assigned the duty of going undercover to buy drugs from kids who hung out in a parking lot in Berkshire County in Massachusetts. Merchants had complained to police about the kids. Mitchell Lawrence was there with his pipe and a few buds of marijuana. He had no idea the parking lot was less than 1,000 feet from a preschool located in the basement of a church, nor did he know this parking lot was the site of a police sting operation.

Aguirre approached Mitchell and asked him if he had any weed. Mitchell pulled out a small bag of marijuana. The cop offered him $20. Mitchell hesitated; Aguirre insisted. Mitchell, who had seen Aguirre hanging out with other kids, motioned the cop to follow him up the street where he intended to smoke with him. Aguirre waved the $20 in his face. Mitchell, who was broke at the time, took the money, the first time he had ever accepted money in exchange for marijuana.

In the months that followed, Aguirre approached Mitchell again for marijuana. This time, however, Mitchell refused. Weeks later, a crew of undercover cops stormed Mitchell's home and placed him under arrest. Mitchell was found guilty of distribution of marijuana, committing a drug violation within a drug-free school zone and possession.

On March 22, 2006, Mitchell Lawrence was sentenced to two years in prison.

While this outrageous case happened in a sleepy burg in Massachusetts, the case of Mitchell Lawrence is one of countless tales of drug war madness that takes place on America's streets daily.

Mitchell Lawrence's story was eerily familiar to me. In 1985, I was the subject of a police sting operation after passing an envelope containing four ounces of cocaine to undercover officers in Mount Vernon, New York. I was set up by someone who offered me $500 to transport the package. The individual who introduced me to the cop was an informant facing life in prison. He was offered a deal -- the more people he helped ensnare, the less time he would serve. I received a sentence of 15 years to life under New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws.

Mitchell Lawrence's disproportionate sentence was handed down one day before the release of a national report by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) titled, "Disparity by Design: How Drug-free Zone Laws Impact Racial Disparity and Fail to Protect Youth," which includes research from Massachusetts.

The JPI study, commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance, found that drug-free zone laws do not serve their intended purpose of protecting youth from drug activity. The Massachusetts data on drug enforcement in three cities found that less than one percent of the drug-free zone cases actually involved sales to youth. Additionally, Massachusetts researchers found that nonwhites were more likely to be charged with an offense that carries drug-free zone enhancement than whites engaged in similar conduct. Blacks and Hispanics account for just 20 percent of Massachusetts residents, but 80 percent of drug-free zone cases.

"School zone laws have remained unchanged in Massachusetts because the legislature has been promised that prosecutors use discretion," said Whitney A. Taylor, executive director of the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts. "Unfortunately, the life of a young man has been sacrificed, proving that discretion is not being used, and that the law must be changed."

Mitchell Lawrence was not the only person arrested in an undercover drug operation in the summer of 2004. There were a total of 18 others, including five young people who are still awaiting trial for alleged sales that took place at the same Great Barrington parking lot.

District Attorney David F. Capeless is the man behind Berkshire County enforcement and entrapment. Capeless is a hard-nosed drug war zealot, who insists that these laws are effective in combating drug use -- even if it means ruining a young man's life in the process.

Mitchell Lawrence was set to graduate from high school this spring. Instead, he will watch his fellow classmates graduate from his prison cell.

The common thread between my case, Mitchell's case and drug-free school zones nationally is the abuse of power from the prosecutors through the application of mandatory minimums. These laws handcuff judges and force them to impose harsh sentences.

Mitchell Lawrence's conviction inspired a group of concerned Berkshire County residents to seek Capeless' ouster in the upcoming district attorney race. Defense attorney Judith Knight answered the call to fill this role. Knight, a former assistant district attorney for Middlesex County, said Mitchell Lawrence's conviction was "the tipping point" for her decision to run against Capeless in the upcoming Democratic primary election in September.

"A tough prosecutor is tough on crime and also has the ability to demonstrate compassion and insight when the case calls for it," Knight says. She hopes to follow in the footsteps of David Soares, who ran for district attorney and defeated Paul Clyne in Albany, New York, in 2004. Soares ran a race primarily on the platform of Rockefeller Drug Law reform. He easily defeated the sitting district attorney, who refused to change his views on the draconian drug law legislation of New York.

It is heartening that communities like Berkshire County are fighting back and attempting to hand reckless district attorneys and other politicians the pink slip. Choosing to destroy lives and indiscriminately apply laws does more harm than good, ultimately, and it doesn't make our streets any safer.



Anthony Papa is the author of "15 To Life: How I Painted My Way To Freedom" (Feral House).
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/34814/

[chefmike]

The War on Drugs Is Really a War on Minorities

Arianna Huffington 3/27/2007

Democratic presidential candidates crave the Latino and black vote, but ignore the Drug War's unfair toll on people of color.

There is a subject being forgotten in the 2008 Democratic race for the White House.

While all the major candidates are vying for the black and Latino vote, they are completely ignoring one of the most pressing issues affecting those constituencies: the failed "war on drugs" -- a war that has morphed into a war on people of color.

Consider this: According to a 2006 report by the American Civil Liberties Union, African Americans make up an estimated 15% of drug users, but they account for 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted and 74% of all drug offenders sentenced to prison. Or consider this: The U.S. has 260,000 people in state prisons on nonviolent drug charges; 183,200 (more than 70%) of them are black or Latino.

Such facts have been bandied about for years. But our politicians have consistently failed to take action on what has become yet another third rail of American politics, a subject to be avoided at all costs by elected officials who fear being incinerated on contact for being soft on crime.

Perhaps you hoped this would change during a spirited Democratic presidential primary? Unfortunately, a quick search of the top Democratic hopefuls' websites reveals that not one of them -- not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, not John Edwards, not Joe Biden, not Chris Dodd, not Bill Richardson -- even mentions the drug war, let alone offers any solutions.

The silence coming from Clinton and Obama is particularly deafening.

Obama has written eloquently about his own struggle with drugs but has not addressed the tragic effect the war on drugs is having on African American communities.

As for Clinton, she flew into Selma, Ala., to reinforce her image as the wife of the black community's most beloved politician and has made much of her plan to attract female voters, but she has ignored the suffering of poor, black women right in her own backyard.

Located down the road from her Chappaqua, N.Y., home are two prisons housing female inmates, Taconic and Bedford. Forty-eight percent of the women in Taconic are there for nonviolent drug offenses; 78% of those in the prison are African American or Latino.

And Bedford, the state's only maximum-security prison for women, is home to some of the worst victims of New York's draconian Rockefeller-era drug laws -- mothers and grandmothers whose first brush with the law resulted in their being locked away for 15 years or more on nonviolent drug charges.

Yet even though these prisons are so nearby, Clinton has turned a blind eye to the plight of the women locked away there, notably refusing to speak out on their behalf.

Avoidance of this issue comes at a very stiff price (and not just the more than $50 billion a year we're spending on the failed drug war). The toll is paid in shattered families, devastated inner cities and wasted lives (with no apologies for using that term).

During the 10 years I've been writing about the injustice of the drug war, I've repeatedly watched as politicians paid lip service to the problem but then ducked as the sickening status quo claimed more victims. In California, of the 171,000 inmates jamming the state's wildly overcrowded prisons, 36,000 are nonviolent drug offenders.

I remember in 1999 asking Dan Bartlett, then the campaign spokesman for candidate George W. Bush, about Bush's position on the outrageous disparity between the sentences meted out for possession of crack cocaine and those given for possession of powder cocaine -- a disparity that has helped fill U.S. prisons with black low-level drug users (80% of sentenced crack defendants are black). Federal sentencing guidelines dictate that judges impose the same five-year prison sentence for possession of five grams of crack or 500 grams of powder cocaine.

"The different sentencing for crack cocaine and powder cocaine is something that there's no doubt needs to be addressed," Bartlett told me. But in the more than six years since Bush and Bartlett moved into the White House, the problem has gone unaddressed. No doubt about it.

Maybe the president will suddenly wake up and decide to take on the issue five days before he leaves office. That's what Bill Clinton did, writing a 2001 New York Times Op-Ed article in which he trumpeted the need to "immediately reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences" -- conveniently ignoring the fact that he had the power to solve it for eight years and did nothing.

When it mattered, he maintained an imperial silence. Then, when it didn't, he became Captain Courageous. And he lamented the failures of our drug policy as though he had been an innocent bystander rather than the chief executive (indeed, the prison population doubled on his watch).

The injustice is so egregious that a conservative senator, Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), is now leading the charge in Congress to ease crack sentences. "I believe that as a matter of law enforcement and good public policy, crack cocaine sentences are too heavy and can't be justified," he said. "People don't want us to be soft on crime, but I think we ought to make the law more rational."

There's a talking point Hillary and Obama should adopt. It's both the right thing and the smart thing. Because of disenfranchisement statutes, large numbers of black men who were convicted of drug crimes are ineligible to vote, even those who have fully paid their debt to society.

A 2000 study found that 1.4 million African American men -- 13% of the total black male population -- were unable to vote in the 2000 election because of state laws barring felons access to the polls. In Florida, one in three black men is permanently disqualified from voting. Think that might have made a difference in the 2000 race? Our shortsighted drug laws have become the 21st century manifestation of Jim Crow.

Shouldn't this be an issue Democratic presidential candidates deem worthy of their attention?

[Quinn]

always the pragmatist Quinn?

LOL.... It's either that or I'm just not that bright......

-Quinn

[chefmike]

good job, if you do or sell drugs you should be shot.

Which means you have no worries until they start shooting cretins, right?

[Quinn]

its pretty horrible...all depends on your lawyer....

Serious cosign. It all depends on the attorney. In my case, having the right attorney once saved me from doing ten years (not drug related).

-Quinn

[TJT]

Shoot,when I was a teenager the state of Texas routinely sentenced folks to 70 years hard time for possessing a minimum of two joints. That law was on the books and enforced until the mid-70's.

[Taom]

Some drugs should be regulated, and some shouldn't be around. I really don't feel that pot should hold such a high sentence as it does. I live in a pretty conservative state, and even here, medical weed almost passed into legality. There are people who should be behind bars for what they've done, and just my personal opinion, pot smokers aren't them. If he was selling to a kid, then my opinion would be entirely different. Adults on the other hand, are capable of making mature decisions.

[chefmike]

Read the article, HE WASN'T SELLING TO A KID!

It was classified as a school zone because of a pre-school in a nearby church basement! He wasn't standing outside of an elementary school enticing youngsters to try "reefer." READ THE FUCKIN' ARTICLE!

If we legalized and taxed cannabis like liquor, that monkey in the white house could almost pay for his Big Lie in Iraq!

Hawaii's economy would damn sure skyrocket! Not to mention Cali's...

[chefmike]

And while you're at it, read the stats on rehabilitation versus incarceration regarding non-violent drug crimes...

[Taom]

calm down chef, i said IF. I read the article. In my opinion weed isn't anywhere near as dangerous as alcohol, which is legal. Legalize it and tax it, the government would have more money to waste on stupid shit.

[chefmike]

calm down chef, i said IF. I read the article. In my opinion weed isn't anywhere near as dangerous as alcohol, which is legal. Legalize it and tax it, the government would have more money to waste on stupid shit.

Nothing personal...it's just an issue that I feel very strongly about...and one that politicians on both sides of the aisle are too chickenshit to deal with...

I am one of the few on this board who have admitted to being inside....although it wasn't really "inside" in my case...three months in county on a pot bust, thanks to my roomate at that time...it was a breeze for me, being one of the biggest, and by far the most educated in my dorm...but when I was still in my twenties I used to work out with some guys who had done some hard time for smuggling...that was the oceanfront in the 80's where I came up...bottom line...prison is no place for an 18 year-old to be for selling a fucking joint...allright...'nuff said...

[chefmike]

(((Off Topic)))

Over here in the UK, we lock up pensioners who owe £74(approx $145) to the government, given that her council tax increased by 18.5%, after paying into the system all her life and only given a 3% increase.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6502589.stm

So are you saying that the UK still has debtor's prisons?

[Trogdor]

Read the article, HE WASN'T SELLING TO A KID!

It was classified as a school zone because of a pre-school in a nearby church basement! He wasn't standing outside of an elementary school enticing youngsters to try "reefer." READ THE FUCKIN' ARTICLE!

If we legalized and taxed cannabis like liquor, that monkey in the white house could almost pay for his Big Lie in Iraq!

Hawaii's economy would damn sure skyrocket! Not to mention Cali's...

I say just decriminalize it, cause if it's regulated, you'll get a half ass quality weed, have to be fuckin' 21 just to have it, pay an arm and leg for a small amount and that tax money is just gonna go to a bunch of politicians who can't agree on anything apart from, "Let's all go on vacation and raise our salaries.....again!".

Just decriminalize it and let someone get high if they want, the damned jails are mostly filled with non-violent people who just got caught like this kid, ( I still find the idea of undercover work as entrapment. ) I say that we decriminalize weed and other drugs, let the stoners out of jail, let people see a hooker if they want, let people gamble if they want and actually go after the real criminals, like the murders and rapists that upon being caught, they end up either getting a light sentence or are back out on the streets in a day or so. Am I the only one here that thinks the police and courtss are just a bunch of chicken-shit cowards that are just out to get rich and try to rule us like kings? :P

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin are probably looking down at us from heaven, shaking their heads and saying, "We gave you folks a nice country and you fucked it up. :P "

[Trogdor]

(((Off Topic)))

Over here in the UK, we lock up pensioners who owe £74(approx $145) to the government, given that her council tax increased by 18.5%, after paying into the system all her life and only given a 3% increase.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/6502589.stm

So are you saying that the UK still has debtor's prisons?

Why not go have that old crow the queen, hang-glider ears Chuck, and that sasquatch Cammila start paying taxes instead of butt fucking the little guys? :roll:

[chefmike]

Look at the disparity between the average sentences of pedophiles and non-violent drug offenders...

I was lucky when my (new)roomate neglected to tell me that he had a few pounds of bud in his closet...I didn't have the most expensive lawyer, but I knew enough to find out which local defense attorney was chummy with the DA(remember this if you ever get busted)...if a DA is running for re-election, find out who he plays golf with... :wink:

[dan_drade]

Damn, it's a good thing I dodn't live there when I was in high school. I would still have another fourty years to serve.