Some might think it incongruent for a law-and-order voice such as the Deseret Morning News to insert itself a case involving a young man convicted in federal court in 2003 of selling small amounts of marijuana to an undercover officer, twice with a gun in his possession.
But our interest in this case is the injustice of a federal sentencing scheme that U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell — who in sentencing Weldon Angelos to 55 years in prison — described as "unjust, cruel and irrational." On Tuesday, attorneys for Angelos argued before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that Angelos' sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. It is.
As Cassell has noted, the sentencing scheme is irrational. Angelos, a first-time offender, could remain in prison until he is 80 years old. Had his case been tried in state court, he would have faced five to seven years in prison, according to his attorneys. As it stands, Angelos' prison term is twice as long as the prescribed minimum sentences for terrorists, murders and rapists. It strains logic.
Federal prosecutors maintain that the court had no choice but to use the guidelines mandated by Congress, a point that piqued the interest of appellate senior Judge Stephen Anderson of Salt Lake City, who asked if common sense could intervene or if courts are simply bound by precedent. "You're just saying 'tough?' "
Therein lies the fundament flaw of minimum mandatory laws: They strip judges of their ability to judge.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals should embrace this opportunity to declare the sentencing scheme unconstitutional as cruel and unusual. While we have little patience for drug offenses, which tend to overlap into so many other aspects of society and undermine families as they destroy lives, punishment needs to fit the crime. In Angelos' case, it clearly does not.