Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Passages I Love: God, Souls, and a… | A Critical Overview of The Stranger… »

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Drugs Prison Letter of the Day

Posted by Brendan Kiley on Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:23 AM

Since I started working on this story about crack sentencing guidelines, I've been receiving bunches of email, via Corrlinks, from people serving various sentences related to crack-cocaine charges. I thought I'd share a few:

In the name of the Most High...

Peace!

Mr. Kiley,

I am writing to initiate correspondence regarding the new Crack Amendment (750). Mr. S referred your email address to me and suggested that I share some of my views with you. I am a first-time, non-violent offender that has been incarcerated for 18.5 years since my junior year of college. I was initially sentenced to Life in 1993, then 27 years in 1997 and now 22 years on Nov. 1st. I have a new release date of April 2012. The two-level reduction removed 62 months from my sentence and I have 5 months left to serve. I may receive a half-way house designation before April. I expected more people to be released by now but most inmates are not initiating and sending in motions for reduction. People need to be guided through the process and not just wait on the courts to act. There are many more guys precluded because they are "career offenders" and that is a travesty. The amount of crack cocaine triggers the different level of for career offenders, so they should benefit from the change, but some say the hold up is that the new Statutory Minimum and Maximums have not been made retroactive. Lastly, Mr. Kiley, the 18 to 1 ratio* is not enough or even Justifiable. We must press for parity because this War on Drugs feels more like a War on Us! Thank you for your precious time and God bless!

Sincerely,
J

* The new crack-sentencing guidelines have changed the federal sentencing gap from 100-to-1 for crack vs. powder to 18-to-1. Before Nov 1, you could get 20 years for 5 grams of crack, or life for 50. For powder cocaine, a federal life sentence wasn't even an option unless you were holding 5,000 grams—or had exacerbating factors like a serious criminal history or a gun charge. (If there's one thing you drug people out there should know, it's that packing a pistol at a drugs transaction dramatically increases your problems when sentencing time comes.)

J is doing his time at the Federal Corrections Institute in Dade County, Florida.

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

The new crack-sentencing guidelines have changed the federal sentencing gap from 100-to-1 for crack vs. powder to 18-to-1.

How is this even vaguely still fair? It should be 1 to 1.

Posted by Joe Szilagyi

on November 30, 2011 at 8:31 AM

Praying to me for peace? WHat is this!?

Posted by More, I Say! on November 30, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Of course, these guys all knew what the penalty was when they did the crime, and it didn't seem to bother them much then.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on November 30, 2011 at 8:53 AM

Yeah, they totally knew ahead of time about the cruel or unusual punishment for their crime, so there's clearly no problem.

Posted by Ben on November 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM

The letters thus far seem remarkably well written (though with a few quirks such as texting conventions and random capitalization).

Are they edited in any way, Brendan?

Posted by rob!

on November 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM

am i the only one who's not glad this guy's (still) locked up?

Posted by Max Solomon on November 30, 2011 at 9:15 AM

@1 It doesn't take as much crack to get high. Crack produces a much shorter more intense high, which makes it more addictive and makes addicts more troublesome because they need to use more frequently. Saying crack should be treated the same as powder cocaine is like saying Jack Daniels should be treated the same as Budweiser.

Posted by Ken Mehlman on November 30, 2011 at 9:25 AM

@6 No.

Posted by Ken Mehlman on November 30, 2011 at 9:26 AM

@3 Yeah, funny how addiction pushes people to take risks and make harmful choices in pursuit of satisfying addiction. Almost like it's a disease that should be treated, rather than just throwing 'em all in jail, you know?

Posted by Hernandez

on November 30, 2011 at 9:30 AM

Seriously, Brendan, I think when you're dealing with amounts over 1000g, start saying kilos. It drives the point home.

Posted by STJA on November 30, 2011 at 9:39 AM

@7 that's a nice defense of the BBOPP (Being Black Or Poor Penalty) right there.

Posted by Joe Szilagyi

on November 30, 2011 at 9:43 AM

@ 5. Nope, no editing, except in this one where J. thought my last name was "Kileu" (or maybe he just had a shitty, broken keyboard to work with). I changed that to "Kiley" just to be less distracting.

But this brings up a good point—I'm not posting these letters to paint some pedantic picture. I just want to post them as they were written, the inmates speaking for themselves.

Posted by Brendan Kiley on November 30, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Addiction, Hernandez, or greed? From reading his letter, it sounds like he was busted for having way more than what he needed for his "personal use."

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on November 30, 2011 at 10:01 AM

@13 True. Addicts often turn to dealing as a way to support their habit, but we don't know the specifics of this particular case.

Posted by Hernandez

on November 30, 2011 at 10:19 AM

@ 5280,
Buying stuff in bulk is usually cheaper than buying "single-serving" sizes. Cocaine doesn't have an expiration date, maybe he had so much because he's just economical?

Yeah, that's probably not the case, but it does show the prejudice that criminals get. If they have a bunch of drugs, it's simply assumed that they're dealing, not that they buy in bulk.

No wonder so many are repeat offenders... when people are told by everyone around them that they'll always be a crook no matter what they do, eventually they'll believe it.

Posted by Urgutha Forka on November 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM

@ 15 - Crooks, or capitalists?

All the dealers I've ever known have been first-rate capitalists, and fairly honest people to deal with, because they wanted to retain their customers.

Only problem was, their product was against the law. The DEMAND was certainly there, as was the SUPPLY - and a lot, lot, lot of people willing to take major risks to unite the two.

We really do need to open up The Drugs Dialogue in this country, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime......

Posted by merry on November 30, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Where in the letter does he say he was an addict? If he was in college, he must have been an extremely high-functioning crack addict. Or he was dealing for income.

Is it even possible to buy illegal drugs in "bulk"? How many addicts have that kind of cash lying around? And what kind of dealer is dumb enough to sell drugs in large quantities with a significant price break? That's a good recipe for: 1. getting caught holding a shit-ton of drugs at once; 2. losing market share to your own customers when they turn around and sell those drugs.

Posted by keshmeshi on November 30, 2011 at 11:57 AM