Brittney Griner Sentenced to 9 Years for Bringing Drugs into Russia

[YitzyS]

Do you feel the same way about this case? @S209

In the case of the bullets, it was in his suitcase during a 2-hour stopover, in which he was not going to leave the airport. His suitcases were going to be transferred directly by the airlines. It is completely normal for someone to not think that through.

[imayid2]

that would mean KH was president.

This has nothing to do with her pro nouns, right? Just making sure.

[Yehuda57]

The case you linked has an aspect that is a perfect example of that. They didn't bother testing all the bags he had because it would not have changed the sentance.

How many bags would justify *life without parole*? A carload? A tractor-trailer?

Roll that around in your head a few times: life without parole. Life. An entire human life. Over.

I don't have the numbers off hand, but the vast majority (and perhaps almost all) of such people actually committed greater crimes. The reason they were only convicted of the marijuana possession charge is because they pled to that charge in exchange for the other charges being dropped, or they were not charged with the more serious crime because the prosecutors knew that the sentence would be the same.

The criminal justice is completely messed up. We have loads and loads of examples of people taking plea deals when they are completely innocent because they are scared into it and all kinds of shenanigans. The reporting on this is extensive. I know, I know, I'm a bleeding heart liberal softy. But for every guy sitting for a lowly drug charge who actually committed armed robbery and shot at a toddler, there is another person sitting for attempted murder who actually was just caught driving with a broken tail light.

Yes, I'm sure the "narrative" props up many cases where legitimately habitual violent criminals are portrayed as innocent little puppies, but at the same time, the tough-on-crime crowd does the reverse as well.

We all know that a white-collar first-time offender can be sentenced to 27 years, the sentence can meet the sentencing guidelines and still be blatantly unjust. It shouldn't be that difficult to realize that the same system is putting people away for equally unjust sentences even if they aren't members of our community.

Again, I think it is horrific that she is being jailed for 9 years for this crime. I do not fault politicians for speaking up about this. I think they should. They should also speak up louder and stronger about the horrific state of the American criminal justice system. Even if it is "better than Russia", that's a heck of a low bar to need to pass.

[CountValentine]

How many bags would justify *life without parole*? A carload? A tractor-trailer?

Would you agree he had enough that it was with intent to sell?

[Yehuda57]

Would you agree he had enough that it was with intent to sell?

Yes.*

So lets's roll this around in our collective heads: Are we ok with a system that says *life without parole* is NOT cruel and unusual punishment for someone who was caught selling enough pot that could fit in his jeans because more than a decade earlier he committed a non-violent burglary (for which he sat in jail for 8+ years), and then was caught in possession of a firearm (for which he sat 2 years).

*They stopped counting because it was already above a certain threshold (30g) but knew that the maximum it could have been was 79g, which, I would assume, is below whatever the next threshold is. So yes, it's logical to assume he was selling, but it's not like he was running a cartel. It was in his jeans.

[CountValentine]

Yes.*

So lets's roll this around in our collective heads: Are we ok with a system that says *life without parole* is NOT cruel and unusual punishment for someone who was caught selling enough pot that could fit in his jeans because more than a decade earlier he committed a non-violent burglary (for which he sat in jail for 8+ years), and then was caught in possession of a firearm (for which he sat 2 years).

*They stopped counting because it was already above a certain threshold (30g) but knew that the maximum it could have been was 79g, which, I would assume, is below whatever the next threshold is. So yes, it's logical to assume he was selling, but it's not like he was running a cartel. It was in his jeans.

I agree he should not get life. My beef was with the deceiving tweet.

[CountValentine]

It is completely normal for someone to not think that through.

If they have been living under a rock for the last 30 years, maybe!

Anyway, I am shocked and caught off-guard by your response. I would have never guessed that from anyone here. 

[aygart]

Yes.*

So lets's roll this around in our collective heads: Are we ok with a system that says *life without parole* is NOT cruel and unusual punishment for someone who was caught selling enough pot that could fit in his jeans because more than a decade earlier he committed a non-violent burglary (for which he sat in jail for 8+ years), and then was caught in possession of a firearm (for which he sat 2 years).

*They stopped counting because it was already above a certain threshold (30g) but knew that the maximum it could have been was 79g, which, I would assume, is below whatever the next threshold is. So yes, it's logical to assume he was selling, but it's not like he was running a cartel. It was in his jeans.

The constitutional cruel and unusual punishment is not about the punishment fitting the crime.

[aygart]

If they have been living under a rock for the last 30 years, maybe!

Or a teenager

[CountValentine]

Or a teenager

Would that be more like they know but don't care or think it is no big deal?

[imayid2]

Anyone who’s even just tried fighting a dumb traffic ticket knows the system is corrupt. Innocent until proven guilty? A pipe dream. And then there is the ridiculous sentences people who are guilty or somewhat guilty are slammed with. All because they didn’t accept a plea deal. If they are guilty of course they deserve some time, but is the crime of fighting your guilt deserving of such disproportionate sentencing?

[Yehuda57]

The constitutional cruel and unusual punishment is not about the punishment fitting the crime.

I borrowed the phrasing, but I don't care about the technicalities of the constitution or state law. If a judge and an appeals court cannot undo minimum sentencing in a case where more than 90% of humanity would agree the punishment doesn't fit the crime, the system is broken.

[Yehuda57]

A friend was detained and walked through JFK in handcuffs as a teenager because he had brass knuckles in his luggage. He was coming from France, where it was common for guys to carry stuff like that due to the high likelihood of antisemitic attacks, he had no idea that it was considered a weapon. Had that happened in a different country, it could have been a lot worse than an embarrassing walk through the airport.

[CountValentine]

Anyone who’s even just tried fighting a dumb traffic ticket knows the system is corrupt. Innocent until proven guilty? A pipe dream. And then there is the ridiculous sentences people who are guilty or somewhat guilty are slammed with. All because they didn’t accept a plea deal. If they are guilty of course they deserve some time, but is the crime of fighting your guilt deserving of such disproportionate sentencing?

Did you quote the right post as your response has nothing to do with my post.

[imayid2]

Did you quote the right post as your response has nothing to do with my post.

Of course I did. You said

I would have never guessed that from anyone here. 

So I was following up with the same sentiment. I did not mean to infer you disagree. You’ve made it clear you feel the same way.

[CountValentine]

Of course I did. You said

That was in regard to what I quoted.

[aygart]

Would that be more like they know but don't care or think it is no big deal?

That they didn't think it through well enough.

[imayid2]

That was in regard to what I quoted.

And you are right! Obviously, I didn’t think it through
See edit.

[aygart]

I borrowed the phrasing, but I don't care about the technicalities of the constitution or state law. If a judge and an appeals court cannot undo minimum sentencing in a case where more than 90% of humanity would agree the punishment doesn't fit the crime, the system is broken.

The system is set up that the nuances of the punishment fitting the crime are legislative and that makes sense. The judicial system is to protect constitutional rights which are that there cruel and unusual punishment should never happen at all. The rest is very opinion based with many gray areas and best left to the politicians to create policy.

[Yehuda57]

best left to the politicians to create policy.

That's exactly what I was talking about. The hypocritical statements made by politicians, aka lawmakers