Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Paul
Cassell,
the
federal
judge
who
presided
over
the
case,
harshly
criticized
the
sentence
he
was
required
give
Angelos.
"If
he
had
been
an
aircraft
hijacker,
he
would
have
gotten
24
years
in
prison.
If
hes
been
a
terrorist,
he
would
have
gotten
20
years
in
prison.
If
he
was
a
child
rapist,
he
would
have
gotten
11
years
in
prison,"
Cassell
said
in
February
2015.
"And
now
Im
supposed
to
give
him
a
55-year
sentence?
I
mean,
thats
just
not
right."3
Cassell,
who
clerked
for
Supreme
Court
Justice
Antonin
Scalia
and
was
appointed
to
the
federal
bench
by
President
George
W.
Bush,
is
not
a
bleeding
heart
leftist.
During
his
time
on
the
federal
bench,
he
was
a
proponent
of
victims'
rights.4
What
are
the
drastic,
life-threatening
reforms
to
section
924(c)
that
NAAUSA
so
fears?
Under
the
Sentencing
Reform
and
Corrections
Act
(SRACA),
the
25-year
sentences
for
repeat
offenders
would
be
lowered
to
15
years
and
would
only
apply
to
true
recidivists
people
who
had
already
previously
committed
and
been
convicted
of
crimes
that
involved
guns.
These
reforms
would
be
retroactive.
Under
the
bill,
Angelos
could
go
back
to
court
and
if
and
only
if
he
first
convinces
a
judge
that
he
is
not
a
danger
to
the
public
get
his
sentence
reduced
to
15
years
(5
years
for
each
of
his
gun
possession
charges).
SRACA
also
changes
section
924(c)
by
requiring
that
the
15-year
sentences
for
recidivists
be
applied
if
the
person
has
a
prior
conviction
for
any
state
crime
that
involved
a
firearm.
You
heard
that
right:
under
this
reform
bill,
even
more
people
with
a
history
of
violent
offenses
would
actually
be
exposed
to
the
lengthy,
15-year
mandatory
minimum
sentences
if
they
commit
federal
drug
or
violent
crimes
with
a
gun
later
on.
SRACA,
in
short,
merely
ensures
that
people
like
Angelos
would
get
punished
like
the
first-time
offenders
they
are,
rather
than
the
repeat
violent
criminals
that
they
are
not.
NAAUSA
wants
to
convince
us
that
SRACAs
section
924(c)
fix
is
a
hair-
raising
crime
spree
waiting
to
happen.
It
is
actually
a
rather
dull
fix
to
a
technical
glitch
in
the
law.
As
Senator
Mike
Lee
(R-UT),
a
co-sponsor
of
SRACA
explains,
This
is
a
misinterpretation
of
law
rendered
by
courts
across
the
country
that
we
are
now
correcting.
It
is
simply
incorrect
to
say
that
this
suddenly
releases
a
bunch
of
violent
criminals.
I
would
add,
moreover,
that
our
provisions
dealing
with
924(c)
are
actually
tougher
on
crime
moving
forward;
they
are
tougher
on
violent
offenders.
This
expands
the
application
of
924(c)
moving
forward
so
it
applies
to
violent
offenders
and
not
just
drug
offenders
who
are
recidivists."
ACCA:
A
More
Rational
Punishment
for
a
Deeply
Flawed
Law
3
Byron
Pitts,
Jackie
Jesko,
Lauren
Effron,
Former
Federal
Judge
Regrets
55-Year
Marijuana
Sentence,
ABC
News,
February
18,
2015
http://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-judge-regrets-55-year-marijuana-sentence/story?id=28869467
4
David
G.
Savage,
Judges
seek
leeway
in
prison
sentences,
Los
Angeles
Times,
September
26,
2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-sentences29sep29-story.html
Similarly,
NAAUSA
also
opposes
reforms
to
the
Armed
Career
Criminal
Act
(ACCA).
This
federal
law
requires
a
15-year
mandatory
minimum
prison
sentence
for
any
prohibited
person
who
possesses
a
gun
or
ammunition
and
also
has
three
prior
convictions
for
serious
drug
offenses
or
violent
felonies.
ACCA
is
fantastically
broad
and
has
been
litigated
endlessly
in
courts.
It
applies
to
prohibited
people
who
include,
among
others,
dishonorably
discharged
veterans
and
recreational
drug
users.
There
are
no
time
limits
on
how
recent
the
three
prior
convictions
have
to
be
a
person
who
struggled
with
drug
addiction
and
racked
up
three
drug
offenses
10
or
15
years
ago
would
still
find
himself
facing
an
automatic
15-year
prison
term
if
he
later
purchased
a
gun
for
hunting
or
self-defense.5
Some
career
criminals
have
had
short
careers
indeed,
committing
three
crimes
in
a
narrow
window
of
time
and
then
going
on
to
lead
law-abiding
lives
in
which
they
would
like
to
own
a
gun
for
lawful
purposes.
Additionally,
last
summer
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
found
one
part
of
the
definition
of
what
counts
as
a
prior
violent
felony
so
vague
it
tossed
it
out
as
unconstitutional.6
Cook
took
aim
at
the
proposed
changes
to
ACCA
in
the
Sentencing
Reform
and
Corrections
Act
by
taking
a
very
broad
view
of
what
it
would
do.
"It
will
make
reductions
in
sentences
to
be
imposed
on
armed
career
criminals,
and
it
will
make
those
retroactive,"
Cook
said
in
a
recent
interview.
"That
will
mean
that
thousands
of
armed
career
criminals
will
be
eligible
for
release
from
prison."
The
Sentencing
Reform
and
Corrections
Act
makes
ACCA
both
harsher
and
more
reasonable.
It
changes
ACCA
by
increasing
the
maximum
sentence
for
possession
of
a
firearm
by
a
prohibited
person
with
three
prior
convictions
from
10
years
to
15
years.
The
mandatory
minimum
sentence
required
under
ACCA
is,
however,
reduced
from
15
years
to
10
years.
These
are
modest
changes,
indeed.
A
minimum
of
10
years
in
prison
is
still
a
very
harsh
punishment
for
violating
a
law
that
Justice
Antonin
Scalia
has
declared
a
farce
playing
in
federal
courts
throughout
the
nation.7
The
changes
to
ACCA
are
retroactive,
but
that
does
not
mean
that
offenders
will
necessarily
be
released
back
into
communities.
Just
like
Angelos,
an
ACCA
offender
would
first
have
to
convince
the
sentencing
court
that
he
poses
no
danger
to
the
community
before
receiving
any
sentence
reduction.
During
the
Senate
Judiciary
Committee's
markup
of
the
Sentencing
Reform
and
Corrections
Act,
Sen.
Mike
Lee
(R-Utah)
took
aim
at
the
critics
of
the
proposed
5
Mary
Price,
A
Case
for
Compassion,
retrieved
February
5,
2016
http://virginiacure.weebly.com/uploads/2/0/8/8/20882986/priceacaseforcompassion.pdf
6
Johnson
v.
United
States,
135
S.
Ct.
2551
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
7
Jonathan
H.
Adler,
Scalia
Dissent
from
Denial
in
Four
More
ACCA
Cases,
The
Volokh
Conspiracy,
June
27,
2015
http://volokh.com/2011/06/27/scalia-dissents-from-denial-in-four-more-acca-cases/
changes
and
strongly
rebutted
the
notion
that
the
bills
gun
provisions
would
result
in
the
release
of
violent
offenders.
Lee
defended
the
changes
to
ACCA
made
by
the
Sentencing
Reform
and
Corrections
Act,
citing
a
specific
example
of
how
the
law
has
been
misapplied.
"The
ACCA
provisions
deal
with
possession,
by
felons,
of
guns
or
ammunition.
We
make
a
very
modest
reduction
here
from
15
years
to
ten
years
to
reflect
the
simple
fact
that
not
all
felon
in
possession
crimes
are
created
equal,"
Lee
said.
"There
are
some
people
like
this
guy
in
the
Sixth
Circuit
who
was
simply
removing
carpet
from
a
hallway,
and
he
found
a
bullet.
He
picked
up
the
bullet
so
he
could
lay
the
carpet
and
for
that
he
was
convicted,
for
that
he
received
a
15-year
sentence."
"All
we're
saying
is
that
should
be
deemed
ten-year
minimum
mandatory
sentence
rather
than
a
15-year.
We
could
actually
have
a
serious
discussion
here
about
whether
even
a
ten-year
is
just.
But
a
15-year
certainly
is
not
just.
That
is
all
we're
doing.
We're
not
letting
out
violent
offenders.
That
is
false,"
Lee
added.
Opponents
of
the
Sentencing
Reform
and
Corrections
Act
are
resorting
to
scare
tactics.
Obviously,
violent
offenders,
especially
recidivists,
should
be
subject
to
severe
punishments
to
protect
our
communities.
That
is
not
even
in
question
all
the
punishments
in
the
Sentencing
Reform
and
Corrections
Act
are
still
severe,
by
any
standard.
What
this
bill
does
is
address
the
misapplications
of
section
924(c)
and
ACCA,
providing
for
retroactivity
if
the
offender
is
not
a
danger,
while
expanding
the
violent
offenses
that
can
be
considered
in
sentencing
to
those
committed
in
state
jurisdictions.
Under
this
bill,
everyone
still
goes
to
prison
for
a
long
time,
and
people
do
not
get
to
come
home
early
unless
they
are
no
longer
a
threat.
Senator
Lee,
a
former
federal
prosecutor,
can
understand
NAAUSAs
concerns
he
is
just
not
persuaded
by
them,
and
neither
should
we
be.
Jason
Pye
is
the
director
of
communications
and
the
director
of
justice
reform
for
FreedomWorks.
Molly
Gill
is
the
director
of
federal
legislative
affairs
for
Families
Against
Mandatory
Minimums.