Pubdate: Tue, 31 May 2005 Source: Berkshire Eagle, The (Pittsfield, MA) Copyright: 2005 New England Newspapers, Inc. Contact: http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/897 Author: Kraig Peterson Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prison.htm (Incarceration) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing) JUSTICE, NOT POLITICS To the Editor of THE EAGLE: It is unfortunate that so much of the debate regarding the Great Barrington "sting" operation is being framed in terms of red herrings such as previous convictions and social class when the real issues are simple: justice and prosecutorial discretion. That youthful first-time non violent minor offenders have been sentenced mandatory two year sentences is in itself unjust and in no way a rationale to subject others to the same treatment. It would be just as logical to argue that because racial discrimination was accepted in previous generations, it is justified now. The law is unjust and should be changed. In the meantime, the district attorney should use the discretion available to him in the pursuit of fairness and justice, not political points. Let the judges and juries, whose job it is to make the determination of punishment, carry out their duties. It is also disingenuous of Mr. Capeless or his defenders to suggest that he is merely applying the law in an even-handed fashion. We have only to look at his handling of a plea bargain of the following charges in a recent case as reported in the May 14 Berkshire Eagle: Possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, possession of hashish, breaking and entering in the daytime with the intent to commit a felony: Sentence; three years probation: Possession of a firearm without a firearm identification card, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, possession of a large-capacity weapon during the commission of a felony, two counts of a drug violation within a drug-free school zone: Sentence; charges dismissed at the commonwealth's request. I am not questioning that there may have been valid reasons for this course of action, rather that the discretion is there to be used. I am questioning the hypocrisy of contending that this same discretion has no place in the case of 17-year-old first-time nonviolent offenders. Is it possible that the reasoning behind such a variation in approaches by the district attorney is political? I hope not, but if so, I urge him to reconsider -- we should be looking for a just punishment, Mr. Capeless, not the next election. Kraig Petersen South Egremont - --- MAP posted-by: Beth