Pubdate: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 Source: Tulsa World (OK) Copyright: 2001 World Publishing Co. Contact: http://www.tulsaworld.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/463 Author: Kevin Haas Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing) PUT THIS IN YOUR PIPE: DRUG LAWS TOO HARSH In the state of Oklahoma, we can be punished more severely for committing nonviolent crimes than violent crimes. Nonviolent offenders deserve to be punished, but not punished more harshly than violent offenders who ruin and end the lives of others. In a democracy, which is what our government likes to call itself, the people's beliefs should be reflected in our nation's and states' laws. The severity of a punishment should be directly proportional to the severity of the committed crime. The people of this state do not think people convicted a couple of times for the possession of drugs or once for a "specific controlled synthetic substance" should be sentenced more years in prison than a rapist or a murderer. However, our state's statutes differ with the people. In our fine state, rapists and murderers can be sentenced to fewer years in prison than non-violent offenders. A rapist (first degree) could be sentenced for as few as five years in prison and someone guilty of second-degree murder or kidnapping for purpose of extortion could be sentenced for 10 years. Additionally, poisoning and solicitation for first-degree murder carry a sentence of five years, a short time compared to a non-violent offender sentenced to 20 years. In this state, any person who is convicted of a third felony is automatically sentenced a minimum of 20 years in prison. A person could be convicted of possession of PCP three times and be sentenced to 20 years or someone else could be convicted of possession of marijuana four times and also be sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in prison. Someone convicted twice of manufacturing or possessing with the intent to distribute any synthetic controlled substance gets a minimum of 10 years in jail. If a person is convicted of drug trafficking, and he or she has already been convicted of two or more violations of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, that person's minimum prison sentence is life without parole. For the grand finale: Anyone who possesses, manufactures or even attempts to manufacture a substance listed in Section 2-322 of Title 63 -- which for those of you who haven't memorized your state statutes, include such chemicals as D-Lysergic acid (a component of LSD), methylamine, isosafrole, norpseudophedrine and 17 other chemicals with long names that I have never heard of -- receives a minimum of 20 years in prison. I will be the first to admit that I do not know exactly what these chemicals are, but I am certain that possessing one of these chemicals is not nearly as bad as raping or taking the life of another human being. In a democracy, our laws and punishments for crimes should directly reflect the peoples' opinions. I do not believe that a person convicted of possessing PCP three times or someone convicted of possessing one of the 21 substances listed in 2-322 is four times more harmful to our society than a rapist or even twice as harmful as a murderer, but the minimum sentencing statutes in our state implies that this is true. A murderer is more of a danger to society than a person convicted twice of manufacturing a synthetic controlled substance, but state law suggests that the crimes are equal because they both carry minimum jail sentences of 10 years. Drugs are not our society's biggest problem, but our laws unfairly target these non-violent offenders. In America, there are 94,000 alcohol-related deaths a year vs. 21,000 drug-related deaths, including the violence associated with the drug trade, according to "The Sentencing Project -- Policy Reports" (www.sentencingproject.org). More than four times as many people die from alcohol than from drugs in America in any given year. History shows that the prohibition of alcohol doesn't work. But while alcohol remains legal, many other mind-altering substances that are far less dangerous than alcohol are still illegal. The prohibition of alcohol did not work because illegal bootlegging was even more detrimental than the alcohol itself. Annually, our country spends an estimated $6.1 billion a year to incarcerate drug offenders, but the government has continually maintained its expensive prohibition, the so-called "War on Drugs," on substances that are less hazardous than alcohol. In a survey performed by NORMAL across America of high school seniors in the class of 2000, 48.8 percent reported having tried or used marijuana at least once. This statistic isn't too shocking, but if a survey showed that 48.8 percent of high school students had previously raped or murdered, we would be appalled. Yet it is possible in the state of Oklahoma for a rapist to serve a fourth of the time spent in jail that a non-violent person convicted of three felonies. It is probably true that drug crimes occur more often than violent crimes, but a punishment for a crime should not be more severe just because the crime occurs more often. Since 75 percent of all inmates are repeat offenders, according to the Indiana Prevention Resource Center, prison should not be seen as a deterrent to crime. If I had to choose, I would prefer to live next door to a convicted drug user rather than a killer. I think that most people would share my sentiments, but the government has imposed punishments on non-violent offenders that assume these offenders are more harmful to society than violent criminals. These punishments seem absurdly unethical when compared to the lighter punishments of violent criminals. Oklahoma is far behind other states in regard to its drug laws, because at the present, Oklahomas punishments for drug crimes are, without a doubt, absolutely immoral and wrong. - --- MAP posted-by: GD