>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <039501bf2477$57d5a2b0$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Fw: This American Life on the drug war >Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 06:42:32 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Here's a link to a great radio program. While I do not agree with its >position that ANY prosecution of drug crimes is fair, just as I believe that >even benevolent despots are still despots and prejudice "fairly applied" is >still prejudice, it's worth a listen. > >Enjoy, > >Peter > > > > >Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 9:14 PM >Subject: This American Life on the drug war > > > > This week's episode of This American Life which dealt with the unfairness of > > mandatory drug sentences is now available online at > > http://www.thislife.org/ra/143.ram > > > > Here's their blurb about it: > > > > We've all heard occasional news stories about how some of the drug laws > > enacted in the last 15 years may have gone too far. First time offenders get > > locked up for decades. Judges -- even Republican appointees -- say that > > mandatory minimum sentences prevent them from making fair rulings. But have > > sentences really gone too far? This hour examines the areas where a > > consensus is growing on the problems in federal drug laws, and it explains > > the areas where drug laws seem to be administered fairly. > > Prologue. Host Ira Glass with former Congressman Daniel Rostenkowski. When > > Rostenkowski began a term in federal prison, he met for the first time > > people who'd been locked up under harsh drug laws that he'd voted for > > himself. "The whole thing's a sham," he declares. He confesses that he > > didn't really understand the mandatory minimum sentences he voted for in the > > 1980's; he just followed the lead of colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, > > which drafted the laws. (7 minutes) > > Act One. What's wrong with this picture? The story of how a person could be > > sentenced to 19 years for drug possession -- even if police found no drugs, > > drug money, residue or paraphrenalia -- even if it's a first offense. > > Dorothy Gaines was an Alabama nurse with no prior record and no physical > > evidence of any drugs who was sentenced to 19 years. The only evidence > > against her was the testimony of admitted drug dealers who received reduced > > sentences in exchange for naming co-conspirators. (14 minutes) > > Song: Chuck Berry "Thirty Days" > > Act Two. How we got here. We hear the history of why these drug laws were > > enacted from a firsthand witness. Eric Sterling was the lawyer in charge of > > drug laws for the House Judiciary Committee during the 1980's, when > > mandatory minimums were put in place. He tells the inside story of how the > > laws were rammed through Congress -- with no input from judges, prison > > wardens or police officers -- as part of a frenzy of get-tough posturing led > > not by Republicans, but by Democrats. (15 minutes) > > Act Three. Who Watches the Watchmen? Judges give their opinions of the drug > > sentencing laws. Terry Hatter is the Chief U.S. District Judge for the > > Central District of California. He says that under the current federal > > guidelines, 20 percent of the time he can't give the sentence he thinks will > > be fair. Judge Morris Lasker, of the Southern District of New York, a > > veteran of over 30 years on the bench, stopped hearing drug cases for > > several years. 86 percent of federal judges believe the current guidelines > > need to be loosened. (7 minutes) > > Act Four. A night in drug court. Before this show ended we wanted to know -- > > how typical are the horror stories? What happens in a typical drug case? To > > find out, reporter Nancy Updike spent nine hours in Night Narcotics Court in > > Chicago. What she finds: the system is working as fairly as one could hope > > or expect, with one caveat: nearly all the defendants are >African-American, > > even though the jurisdiction contains an equal number of white drug users. > > (16 minutes) > > Song: Nellie Lutcher "Baby What's Your Alibi?" > > > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: