KANKAKEE COUNTY MAN TO SERVE 23 YEARS IN PRISON
FOR REPEATED CRACK COCAINE TRAFFICKING
Urbana, Ill. B Edward
Dorsey Sr., 42, of St. Anne, Ill., was sentenced yesterday to a term of 276
months (23 years) in federal prison for trafficking crack cocaine, as announced
by Jim Lewis, U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Illinois. Dorsey was
also ordered to remain on supervised release for a period of eight years
following completion of his prison sentence. U.S.
District Judge Colin S. Bruce sentenced Dorsey within the advisory federal sentencing
guideline range after finding that Dorsey was a career offender with two prior
felony drug trafficking convictions. In fact, at the time he committed these
offenses, Dorsey had five prior felony drug convictions and was serving a three-year term of supervised release for a prior
federal drug crime.
On August 22, 2014, Dorsey appeared before
U.S. Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal and pleaded guilty to three separate
counts of distributing crack cocaine in Kankakee County. During the plea, Dorsey admitted distributing
more than 28 grams (approximately one ounce) of crack cocaine on two occasions,
Nov. 21 and Dec. 18, 2013, and also distributing crack cocaine on Dec. 10, 2013. At sentencing, the United States presented
evidence that, during his drug trafficking activities, Dorsey threatened to
shoot any law enforcement officers investigating him. Dorsey has been in the custody of the U.S.
Marshals Service since his arrest in this case.
A petition to revoke Dorsey's federal
supervised release remains pending. Dorsey
was on federal supervised release because his prior 10-year federal sentence
had been reduced to time served (three years and eight months) after the U.S.
Supreme Court concluded that he should have been sentenced under the more
lenient penalties of the Fair Sentencing Act. If Dorsey's supervised release is
revoked, he could be sentenced to up to three years in prison in addition to
his new sentence for the drug trafficking charges.
The charges are the result of an
investigation by the Kankakee Area Project Safe Neighborhoods Task Force, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Kankakee Police
Department, and the Kankakee County Major Crimes Task Force. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant
U.S. Attorney Eugene L. Miller.
#
# # #
Anyone want to make a bet about when this story makes it up on the website of the Sentencing Project or Families Against Mandatory Minimums?
Sorry. Just joking. Couldn't help myself.
Bill, you may want to amend the title of your comment:
"Mr. Recidivism, a/k/a What Happens When We Give Them Early Release AND THEY CAN'T GET A LAWFUL JOB WITH A LIVABLE WAGE."
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that criminality in general, or recidivism in particular, are caused solely (or even primarily) by socio-economic factors. But I am wondering if the redivisim rate would be significantly lowered if convicts were able to get decent jobs upon their release from the joint. And, obviously, my wonder is a pipe dream in the current economic environment where even law-abiding persons can't get a decent job.
So, I guess you are right after all: Keep the cons locked up as long as possible because once they are released they have no choice (if they want to survive) but to go back to what they know best -- commiting crimes.
Sad state of revolving door Justice. With no real "solution" on the horizon.
paul,
I respectfully disagree on a number of fronts.
First, it is not up to the government to get individuals jobs. It is up to the individual.
Second, it is also (in my view) not up to the government to require a "livable wage." In the world I would construct, employers would be free to offer such wages as they chose, and prospective employees free to bargain about it or simply move on to a more attractive employer.
Third, it is not principally the government or incarceration that's the problem. The problem, if that's the right word, is that employers are leery of hiring people who have shown they want to live by their own rules. It's hard to blame them.
Fourth, the question of employment is moot in any event as respects this particular entry. Under the law as it existed prior to the Dorsey decision, a crack inmate would ALSO be getting out, only later. There would remain the employment question in both the earlier-release and the later-release scenarios.
Fifth, the problem is less the ex-con's ability to get a legitimate job than his interest in having one. A person who wants to make his money the quick buck route of selling drugs is unlikely to have a lot of interest in some drudgery like actually getting up in the morning and going to work.
I have no desire to keep convicts locked up "as long as possible." I do, however, have a desire to see the Supreme Court follow the law, in particular the obviously-controlling Savings Statute, rather than invent some way around it in the name of pie-in-the-sky rehabilitation.
As a general matter, I'm all for rehab. You're right -- almost all of them will be getting out sometime. For those with a sincere desire to become honest workers, I am more than happy to see my tax dollars spent for vocational education. (For the numerous others faking an interest to fool the parole board, not so much).
As you know, I'm not really a libertarian, but I agree with libertarians at least to this extent: Government responsibility is not the answer. Individual responsibility is.
I can offer a little insight in my capacity as owner of my own little (4 people including me) law firm.
On a theoretical level, I wouldn't have any problem hiring a reformed convict. The problem is I have no idea whether I know someone is reformed or not nor do I have any idea how I could know.
The consequences of making a bad hire can be pretty severe for a small business as if one person isn't pulling their weight, the effects are felt almost immediately. If a Wal-Mart employee doesn't show because he got arrested, it has almost no effect, for small times guys like me, it is the equivalent of having 25% of your work force absent.
So basically it is just too risky for me to hire a ex-con and I think this is true for a lot of small businesses.