Lock'em Up

John Ashcroft tells prosecutors to seek the toughest charges and penalties against criminal defendants.

Comments

[joe]

"The whole purpose is to eliminate the disparity between similarly situated defendants,"

I call bullshit. This could be achieved just as well by advocating for the minimum term in every case.

John Ashcroft is working effortlessly to remove the last ounce of thought from the legal system.

[Mo]

How is advocating always going for the maximum term less odious than minimum terms? At least with minimum terms, which I despise, gives a range that can be adjusted based on specific details. Always going for max doesn't even allow for specifics of the case to come into account.

[Kevin Carson]

Eric,

No--I was saying that anon's "unreasonable man" argument sounded leninist (as did Nock's): "worse before better."

[Kevin Carson]

P.S. Ashcroft hasn't eliminated entire classes of people--yet!

[JSM]

Its a good thing that Ashcroft wasn't AG when Bush was a college student. "Youthful Indescretion" is not a permissible defense in Ashcrofts black and white prosecuterial world.

"Ye all shall burn in hell for ye sins."

[Eric]

Hi Kevin,
I get your point. It's just a pet peeve of mine when anyone, right or left, compares an American politician to a Hitler, Stalin, or Lenin. It's an insult to the millions who were murdered by those monsters (and others) and so untrue its breath-taking.

[P. Pilate]

Good thing Ashcroft wasn't AG when Jesus Christ was running around Palestine.

HE wouldn't have allowed JC to get off so easily with just a scourging and quick death from Crucifixion.

[Anonymous]

All change comes from the unreasonable man. If Ashcroft pushes things, maybe the unreasonable penalties will be changed.

[Kevin Carson]

Anon 1052:

That analysis sounds depressingly leninist. Not to say it's wrong, though. Kind of like Nock's statement that he didn't want government made more efficient--he wanted it to gall, oppress and rob as egregiously as possible, so people could clearly see its essence.

[Tory K. Mada]

Tragic that Ashcroft wasn't around back when we were harrying those heretic chaps before us like wild game. We could have used a man of his extensive talents. As it was we merely dismembered the defendants following summary show trials, burned their body parts, and mingled their ashes with the ashes of beasts.

Well, we didn't have a Patriot Act then. We did our best with the tools we had at the time.

[Eric]

Forgive me, but I don't see the issue here. I see no threat to liberty in Ashcroft's actions. To call it Leninist is absurd, since Lenin sought to create a new society by eliminating entire classes of people. How can one memo from Ashcroft possibly compare to such a monster as Lenin?

[Glenn C]

I realize everyone who reads this site loves to complain about Ashcroft, but did anyone in this thread actually read the article? Six exceptions in which plea bargains are appropriate are listed. What situation is not covered?
Why do all of you believe sentencing disparities are a good thing? I don't see what recommends a system in which your legal jeopardy is dependent solely upon the philosophy of the US Attorney in your area.
Do you think mandatory mininums are bad? Do you believe the drug war penalties are excessive? Good. So do I. Now write your Congressman and your Senators, they are the ones with the power to change the laws.

[Thorley Winston]

Glenn C wrote:

I realize everyone who reads this site loves to complain about Ashcroft, but did anyone in this thread actually read the article? Six exceptions in which plea bargains are appropriate are listed. What situation is not covered?
Why do all of you believe sentencing disparities are a good thing? I don't see what recommends a system in which your legal jeopardy is dependent solely upon the philosophy of the US Attorney in your area.
Do you think mandatory mininums are bad? Do you believe the drug war penalties are excessive? Good. So do I. Now write your Congressman and your Senators, they are the ones with the power to change the laws.

Well put, even though I?m not one of the knee-jerk Ashcroft-haters who dominate this forum (and write for the magazine), I think such laws are foolish as well. Which is why the appropriate remedy is to approach the people who write them, not the people who are duty-bound to enforce them. Frankly while I don?t think it is constitutional for the federal government to establish a criminal code (sans terrorism and a few of the enumerated examples) which belongs to the States, I respect that John Ashcroft is a man who believes in the rule of law and his role to enforce those laws diligently. Frankly I?m not opposed to limiting plea bargains and tougher penalties in general. If you don?t like the law, talk to the people who write it rather than complaining to the guy who has to follow and enforce it.