The Washington Post supports a currently pending bill that would go easier or heroin pushers, but has the honesty to publish this story showing in heartbreaking detail the human damage these people bring about.
Let's assume arguendo that pot sentences can sometimes be too harsh. What is the earthly excuse for voting to go easier on heroin dealers? Do our senators and representatives have no clue about the ongoing, deadly heroin epidemic? Or the ravages this drug causes even when it doesn't kill you? Or is it that they don't care? As long as those billionaire-funded political contributions keep coming in, hey, look, stuff happens.
Read the story and decide for yourself whether now is the time to go soft on heroin dealers. It begins:
When the judge entered the wood-paneled courtroom to begin the sentencing hearing this fall, 19-year-old Morgan Brittain was the only one who didn't stand. She remained seated in her wheelchair in the front row.
Brittain looked in many ways like the girl she once was: Nike sneakers with hot pink laces, nails painted maroon and silver. She still had the slender frame of the dancer and runner she was before she overdosed two years ago on a half a gram of heroin she split with a friend.
The drugs had done serious harm. A younger cousin had to read Brittain's statement to the judge on her behalf:
"I constantly feel like a burden on everyone because of all the things I can't do: walk, talk easily, feed myself, bathe myself, drive, draw or even write this statement out. . . . The damage it has caused to my family and I is too much to even begin to describe."
If drug dealers should be punished harshly for harmful things people do with the drugs they sold, why shouldn't gun dealers be punished harshly for harmful things people do with the guns they sold?
I ask this question not to be obnoxious or to dispute the harms that can be done by all sorts of (legal and illegal) drugs, but to question holding drug dealers (or gun dealers or tobacco dealers or Big Gulp dealers) CRIMINALLY responsible for harms caused by adult decisions to use these dangerous products in a way that results in harm.
You often like to say, Bill, tha anyone can avoid punishment in the criminal justice system by making the sensible choice not to commit a crime. Isn't it likewise true that anyone can avoid the harms of drug abuse by not abusing drugs?
If a gun dealer knowingly, and acting for profit, sold a pistol to a teenager whom he knew or had fair reason to believe was depressed, mentally unbalanced and/or suicidal, and the kid then blows his head off, I would have less than no problem in putting the dealer in jail for so long he'd forget what the sky looks like.
Liberty is among the highest values society should strive to achieve. Basic human decency is even higher.
The idea that going "softer" on heroin dealers will result in increased use/abuse relies on the mistaken assumption that getting "tougher" does the opposite. The nation dramatically increased heroin penalties in the 1980s and those increases obviously did not prevent the current heroin epidemic.
Also worth noting is that the legislation you say would go "softer" on these dealers still allows for a 20-year mandatory minimum if overdoses are involved (ie, it does not change current law for situations like the one described in this news story). I don't think many people would consider a 20-year mandatory minimum to be soft, particularly given that the victim here did make the decision to buy an illegal drug and to put it into her body.
Bill,
Thanks for sharing this article. It reminded me of a classic quote from the Fifth Circuit, which captures the essence of what drug dealers do to our society: "Except in rare cases, the murderer's red hand falls on one victim only, however grim the blow; but the foul hand of the drug dealer blights life after life and, like the vampire of fable, creates others in its owner's evil image--others who create others still, across our land and down our generations, sparing not even the unborn....[G]iven that drug dealers themselves sentence many individuals to a lifetime of addiction and dependency, a life sentence for repeatedly dealing drugs cannot be considered disproportionately cruel and unusual."
Zac
When a 19 year-old decides to join up with his buddies to knock over the gas station, what we hear from the defense bar is, "Good grief, at that age, he has no judgment and no appreciation of consequences. How can you people be so lacking in compassion?"
When a 19 year-old gets hooked on one of the world's most addictive drugs (courtesy of her seller, who thinks this is a cool way to make dough), what we hear from he defense bar is, "[T]he victim here did make the decision to buy an illegal drug and to put it into her body," so if she's a cripple for life, hey, look, will you please quit with this compassion stuff?
You gotta love it.
Zac,
Nailed it, as usual.
Not sure how the defense bar relates to this, as I am not a member of that or any other bar. But I do think both the robber in your example and the heroin user in this story deserve to be held accountable for their actions. I would have guessed you'd be in agreement on that point. Or do you think the dealer forced her to buy the heroin and to inject/snort it?
Not sure how the defense bar relates to this, as I am not a member of that or any other bar. But I do think both the robber in your example and the heroin user in this story deserve to be held accountable for their actions. I would have guessed you'd be in agreement on that point. Or do you think the dealer forced her to buy the heroin and to inject/snort it?
"But I do think both the robber in your example and the heroin user in this story deserve to be held accountable for their actions."
Does the user look like she HASN'T paid a price for her actions? How much more of a price do you think she should pay? Maybe that she be blinded, too?
And do you think the person who sold her this poison should be held accountable? If so, what sentence would you give him?
So if the police shoot and seriously injure your theoretical robber immediately after he commits his robbery, you think he should be absolved of his actions because he took a bullet? I know that's not what you're suggesting.
As I said initially, both your robber and the heroin user committed crimes and should be held accountable for those crimes, rather than be cast as innocent bystanders (as this news story does). Of course, they should be held accountable in PROPORTION to their crimes, and the heroin user is far less culpable than the theoretical robber.
As for the dealer and his superiors, same reasoning applies. They committed much more serious crimes than the user and therefore should be held accountable in proportion to their respective offenses.
Since Yahoo does not provide you with a recognizable user name, please adopt a handle and "sign" your comments in the text to make it clear which comments come from the same person, as Zac has done in this thread. Thanks.