employment-drug-test

SENTENCING LAW PROMOTES INJUSTICE

To the Editor of THE EAGLE:- There is nothing "even-handed" or "fair" about mandatory sentencing.  Seeking mandatory two-year jail sentences and life-long criminal records for first-time offenders denies those prosecuted their right to judicial procedure.  Anyone punished so severely deserves to have their case considered individually.  In his press release, District Attorney Capeless works at vilifying a group of young people who showed bad judgment.  He wants us to believe that they should be grouped with "dealers" of heroin, LSD and cocaine.  Yet, surely he is familiar with the White House study that asserts "In general, marijuana sellers continue to be young users who sell to a network of friends and associates.  Marijuana sellers usually do not deal heroin or cocaine." Kids selling to each other should receive consequences that serve as a wake-up call and change their behavior.  But unfair sentencing has the potential for being hugely destructive to the young people and families involved.  If the actions of the youth involved are as abhorrent as Mr.  Capeless would have us believe, surely these kids will receive appropriate consequences as determined by a judge on a case-by-case basis.  Furthermore, where is the statistical data supporting the effectiveness of the mandatory school zone sentencing law? A Boston University Study on the school zone law states: "It appears from the study findings that the school zone statute ( a ) does not make the areas around schools particularly safe for children; ( b ) cannot reasonably be expected to do so; and © perhaps as a result, is not used by prosecutors in a way calculated to move dealing away from schools.  Instead the law operates generally to raise the penalty level for drug dealing and does so in ways that are unpredictable for defendants." In other words, the law has proven ineffective and is not being used as it was originally intended.

Some would say that because others have had to go to jail in similar circumstances, these kids should too.  But past suffering does not mean we cannot choose to change our course.  As we educate ourselves to the unfairness, ineffectiveness and destructiveness of mandatory sentencing, we must work for legislative changes.  Several local and state politicians assert the need for such changes.  But are we willing to sacrifice the kids caught in the middle while changes are being sought?

I applaud the DA's feelings of responsibility for protecting our young people.  But I believe that this protection includes promoting positive changes through fair sentencing, in the hope that kids on the wrong path will be guided towards positive changes.

The course of mandatory sentencing, that Mr.  Capeless is committed to, promotes injustice.

Fairness demands that consequences be in proportion to misdeeds and that sentencing be decided on a case-by-case basis.  Mandatory sentencing is flawed and yet our current DA perseveres in applying it indiscriminately.  Is this something our community should be willing to support?

Christine Ward, Great Barrington, May 13, 05