In the layman's view of the criminal-justice system, defendants go to trial, are convicted or acquitted of certain charges, and if convicted, are sentenced for the offenses. But try to explain the reality of being sentenced for acquitted conduct, and you're likely to be met with stares of astonishment. "You mean you can go to trial, get acquitted and still go to the slammer for stuff the jury says wasn't proven?"
Indeed, my friends, welcome to the wacky world of criminal sentencing.
Not only have many defendants been sentenced for stuff the jury said they didn't do (or at least wasn't proven), but yesterday the Supreme Court refused to do anything about it. The cert denial came in the case of Mark Hurn of my hometown, Madison, Wis. Hurn ate 15 years extra years in prison for possessing crack cocaine, even though a jury acquitted him of the charge. It's true. Though he was convicted of having powder cocaine in his house, (for which he was looking at two or three years in prison), he was sentenced to almost 18 years. Why? Because even though the jury acquitted him of the crack charge, the judge kind of figured he'd done it and therefore found, by a preponderance of the evidence that he'd done it, and sent him to prison as if the jury had actually said "Guilty" rather than "Not Guilty."
Strange? Yes. But sadly, also true.
And while the high court's refusal to hear Hurn's appeal (notwithstanding reverse his sentence) yesterday was cowardly enough, with the fourth circuit's decision this afternoon in US v. Ibanga, we have finally landed in Wonderland. In the case (and no it's not a joke though I wish it were), the fourth circuit basically says that not only CAN you sentence on acquitted conduct, categorically refusing to consider it is actually error.
What does that mean? It means that if you go to trial and blow, on even a single count, you run the risk of getting slammed for the entire indictment. Not only do ties go to the government, if they even score a run, they win. Anything other than a shut out is a loss for the defense. And that, in turn, makes it virtually impossible to win, but worse, it means that going to trial with a "I did this but not that" defense gets you only a pyrrhic victory. No longer can you reasonably contest a part of the government's case against you at a trial. Well, let me amend that, you can contest it, but it's unlikely to make a difference in how long you go to prison for even if you win.
Your only option? Total victory or plea.
I always wondered if certain drug laws were a deliberate form of disenfranchisement; but that, at least, was within the framework of due process. This seems like a complete abandonment of the concept of process.
It's not the same thing, I know. But it shows you just how prejudiced some people can really be.
Think about it. A judge is only one person, and he can make a ruling. However, the public can do a lot of different things. Throw bricks through your windows, slash your tires, stage protests outside your office.
This judge ruled that the defendant was guilty on charges with no evidence because he was found guilty on something else. The public tends to rule without any evidence at all. Both are horrible, but which is worse?
You better hope that you don't get a bushco(tm) or McBush judge!!!!!!!!!!
Here some parallels:
War in Iraq. Based on nothing but lies. 2/3 of us opposed, Billions wasted, if not trillions, The war has been a failure for now 5 years.
People voiced their disgust at the ballotbox in 06.
War on drugs: Based on nothing but lies. 2/3 of the country supports decriminalization of cannabis (not legalization). 75% + support medical Marijuana. Billions of our tax money wasted. The war has been a failure for 94 years!
Yet the voters don't demand a stop to this insanity at the ballot box. At roughly $100 per day per inmate figure the cost for the nearly 800,000 nonviolen drug users currently locked up by the Industrial Prison Complex! It is our money that is being wasted!
America makes up between 4 to 5% of the world's population yet we proudly and gleefully incarcerate more than 25% of the world's prison population. Overall population: China, 1,321,851,888 and the US, 301,139,947 as reported for 2007. The incarceration rate as reported by the UN in 2001 was for China, 1,428,126 and the US 1,962,220. Even China, a nation known for human rights abuses and with over 4 times the population we have, has fewer incarcerated than we do! A report by the PEW Center recently came up with these numbers; 1 out of every 100 adults and 1 in 15 black males over the age of 18 are currently locked up in the United States and we can pride ourselves in this record! We are Number One in the systematic incarceration in the world!