home

99 Years (Plus 1)

by TChris

While ducking the question of whether Karl Bullock's federal sentence of 100 years for distributing heroin is reasonable, the Seventh Circuit, vacating the sentence and remanding for a new sentencing hearing before a different judge, had this to say (pdf) about the sentence:

One hundred years is a long time--one year longer, in fact, than the standard lyrical shorthand for an unimaginably long sentence.1

[1]See, e.g., Bruce Springsteen, "Johnny 99" ("Well the evidence is clear, gonna let the sentence, son, fit the crime / Prison for 98 and a year and we'll call it even, Johnny 99."); Bob Dylan, "Percy's Song" ("It may be true he's got a sentence to serve / But ninetynine years, he just don't deserve."); Johnny Cash, "Cocaine Blues" ("The judge he smiled as he picked up his pen / Ninety-nine years in the Folsom pen / Ninety-nine years underneath that ground / I can't forget the day I shot that bad bitch down."); Ed Bruce, "Ninety-Seven More To Go" ("Ninety-nine years go so slow / When you still got ninety-seven more to go."); Bill Anderson, "Ninety-Nine" ("The picture's still in front of my eyes, the echo in my ears / When the jury said he's guilty and the judge said ninety-nine years."); Chloe Bain, "Ninety-Nine Years" ("The sentence was sharp, folks, it cut like a knife / For ninety-nine years, folks, is almost for life."); Guy Mitchell, "Ninety-Nine Years" ("Ninety-nine years in the penitentiary, baby, baby, wait for me, around twentyfifty-five we'll get together dead or alive.").

< Letterman: Top Ten Bush Moments | Ken Lay Autopsy Report Released >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#1)
    by aw on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 06:03:19 PM EST
    Wow, they really did refer to Cash and Springsteen describing the "whopper of a sentence".

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 06:05:06 PM EST
    The court missed the Kingston Trio, "Bad Man's Blunder" ("It was a most unsatisfactory trial./ They gave me ninety-nine years on the hard rock pile./ Ninety and nine on the hard rock ground./ All I ever did was shoot a deputy down.")

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#3)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 05:12:17 AM EST
    I think the humor is intended to soften the blow of sending an unmistakable message the appeals court WILL find such a sentence "unreasonable" if upon remand the district court does not reduce it after properly calculating the guidelines (appeals courts almost always decide cases on the "easiest" basis so the "ducking of the "reasonableness" question in this round is pretty routine). Of course, a reduction that the appeals court will find "reasonable" will still be very long. (With a 365 month sentence, a defendant has to serve over 31 years.)

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 06:01:38 AM EST
    I am the only one who thinks putting a humna being in a cage for 100 years is a far worse crime than heroin possesion?

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 06:19:21 AM EST
    It was hardly heroin "possession". The guy was an active member of a gang selling very large amounts of heroin and crack. From the opinion, it seems he admitted "only" 5 sales amounting to 110 grams but that the district court piled on the relevant conduct by including amounts sold by different people (but allegedly in the same gang) in a different location years apart from sales bullock admitted. Note the appeals court, did not discount the possibility that Bullock might be responsible for as much as 8000 grams of heroin; it merely found the district court had insufficient evidence to support that finding. I agree the guidelines are often unfair most notably in the area of relevant conduct attributions in drug cases-- but calling this a 100 year penalty for "heroin possession" is intellectually dishonest. It's a case of a 100 year sentence being remanded for fiurther consideration in a very large heroins distribution case.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 06:42:43 AM EST
    Fair enough. I am the only one who thinks putting a human being in a cage for 100 years is a far worse crime than the sale of heroin?

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 06:46:54 AM EST
    For THIS crime? I think it is wrong, but it's not a "crime" at all if done in accordance with lawfully enacted statutes after a defendant has been afforded due process. Calling things a "crime" because you don't like them serves only to misrepresent the issue. As for ANY crime? I think that for some crimes it would be wrong not to lock someone away for life.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 06:47:33 AM EST
    I tend to advocate a reduction in penalties for drug possession, particuarly marijuana. When pushed, I really don't have a problem with possession and use of drugs in such a way that doesn't violate the privacy or security of others. I'm much less inclined to be forgiving for those who traffic and sell the same drugs. And especially when the drugs are heroin and meth, which have such an utterly destructive effect on the lives of users and their families. In this case, this individual was involved in the violent, high-volume distribution of heroin and other drugs. Is 100 years too much? Might be. Am I shocked and dismayed? Not at all.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#9)
    by roger on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 06:47:47 AM EST
    Sentences like this should only apply to child molesters, and very violent people. These groups are often just to dangerous to allow out in society. If this guy sold to willing adults, he should be set free

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 06:53:31 AM EST
    We don't only enforce the laws with which everyone agrees. You don't want drug laws enforced. Someone else doesn't want tax laws enforced. Another somebody, doesn't want securities laws enforced.... Then after we've eliminated almost all crimes from the reach of enforcement because some group feels they address conduct that should not be criminal, as to the few remaining, we would be constrained to giving no more punishment for those than anyone happens to think is just. Somehow, I don't think that sounds like a good system. Many improvements could be made to the criminal justice system but that sort of "thinking" won't lead to any of them.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#11)
    by roger on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 06:58:23 AM EST
    Decon, We are supposed to enforce (and pass) laws with which most people agree. The attitudes towards the "war on drugs" are changing. The laws on taxes (basically) are not. Dont you think that when a majority changes its mind, the laws should be updated?

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 07:09:47 AM EST
    Other than a belief that marijuana use should be decriminalized (which may not represent a majority), I think it is absurd to say that anywhere near a majority opposes the existence of drug laws per se. At most, I think it is arguable that a slight majority might agree that many times the sentences for certain particular drug offenses are too harsh. If, in fact, a majority shared your belief then you would expect more than an infinitesimal number of elected officials to support such an idea. Where only a very few are even willing to go on record for reduced penalties (let alone repeal of drug laws) it seems even more dishonest to suggest that represents a majority view. Why don't you conduct an experiment? Run for the Democratic nomination for your state legislature and make one of your primary positions repeal of state drug laws. Good luck.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 07:33:02 AM EST
    Heroin is not a physically or mentally harmful drug. Methadone is much more harmful to the mind and body. Heroin is only dangerous because it is illegal. Because it is addictive people will go to great lengths to get it and that includes committing crimes. Because it is illegal gangs like this exist to sell it. Because it is illegal the potency varies and overdoses are likely. Once again, the government cuts off the hand to prevent anyone from scratching a scab.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#14)
    by roger on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 08:02:21 AM EST
    Decon, Last year (I believe) AARP did a poll mRe: medical marijuana. 80% agreed that med marijuana should be legal. Several states passed laws allowing medical marijuana. DSo you think that the feds have allowed this? Re: running for office. First- my wife would leave me if I became a politician. Second- I dont like politicians, I would hate to become one Third- I am actually a left wing Republican, an endangered species

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#15)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 08:30:45 AM EST
    Permitting the use of marijuana for medical purposes is a far cry from repealing the laws which make it illegal to distribute heroin. I don't blame your wife, and I agree that mnay people, including myself, choose not to run for office largely because it is nearly impossible to win without making both "policy" and "personal" (e.g., raising money) compromises that would be distateful. Sadly, though, that leaves the field to those who are willing to do such things in the pursuit of power.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#16)
    by roger on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 08:35:25 AM EST
    Decon, Agreed, on all points. I just used medical marijuana as an example of how they dont really care what we think. I am sure that my other views on drugs are not mainstream.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 08:46:05 AM EST
    Personally, i think the "social harm" from regulated use of marijuana to treat medical conditions is almost nil. Even, if we assume both that the medical benefit is slight snd that other drugs can treat the same conditions some of the "medical" marijuana would be diverted to recreational use, the prohibition is overkill, in my opinion. Somewhat similarly, I think the prohibition of any medical use of heroin is unwise. Heroin is used in other countries to treat severe pain and, even if it is more addictive (highly debatable) than other legal opiates and synthetic opiates, what real harm is there in a dying cancer patient becoming addicted? That said, I think more progress would be made on these fronts without the unhelpful advocacy of people who do want the repeal of all drug laws. That makes it easier for the "prohibistionists" to dismiss arguments as being a subterfuge and step down the slippery slope. similarly, do you not find comical some of the "hemp advocates" bringing up every conceivable farfetched use except for the pleasant psychoactive effects when ingested. People do recognize duplicity.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#18)
    by roger on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 08:58:05 AM EST
    Decon, The "hemp" people are a bit out there, especially if you consider that the hemp pollen contaminates grow rooms, and ruins the "good" stuff. Secondly, I think that more people agree with me when I point out that addiction is a medical problem that should be dealt with by health care professionals, not lawyers.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    "Secondly, I think that more people agree with me when I point out that addiction is a medical problem that should be dealt with by health care professionals, not lawyers." I'm not so sure about that. I know A LOT of people who view it as a symptom of personal moral failure. Even those who do agree that "addiction" is a medical problem, are not necessarily drawn to the conclusion that therefore all laws against importing, manufacturing or distributing drugs should be repealed. One can believe both that the social ill of drug abuse should be addressed primarily through social or medical prograns and that the social ill of drug distribution should be addressed through criminal justice programs.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 09:55:54 AM EST
    Opinion expressed aside, do you really think that is good poetry? If it was not "controversial" would it have any merit as writing?

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peaches on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    Decon, I think Robert Frost once said that Poetry is the most efficient means for expressing an idea. If this controversial idea is expressed well, it is good poetry in my opinion.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:14:34 AM EST
    Maybe the original judge had the song "99 bottles of beer on the wall" rolling around in his head when he sentenced...

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    I liked it oscar. I myself wonder why drug dealers are so demonized... 99% of the ones I've come across are stand-up people just trying to make a living providing a service that the market is obviously screaming for. They've treated me better than most of the so-called "legitimate" businessmen I deal with.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#25)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:41:16 AM EST
    Peaches: Well, that begs the question Do you really think that work expresses it well? I claim no talent as a poet, and have no particular affinity for poetry as an art form, but that strikes me as just plain terrible writing by any standard, other than I agree with his idea so I must praise his "art."

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:46:55 AM EST
    Opinion expressed aside, do you really think that is good poetry? If it was not "controversial" would it have any merit as writing?
    I don't think it will go down in the annals as a literary masterpiece, and I'm sure Fegan didn't expect it to. It is a vehicle for contempory issues, nothing more.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#27)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:49:39 AM EST
    oscar: OK, I'll accept that, but your appending the snippet of the review (which admittedly was speaking to the collection as a whole not that work in particular) misled me.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:58:26 AM EST
    Decon. Yes I could see how it may have been misleading. There is some powerful verse in the collection, will you try try "Still I Rise" by Maya Chowdhry.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 11:02:11 AM EST
    Sorry, bad link. Still I rise.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#30)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 11:02:19 AM EST
    the link doesn't work for me.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#31)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 11:03:06 AM EST
    the link doesn't work for me.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 11:06:18 AM EST
    I seem to be having probs at this end, if this doesn't work perhaps you may have to Google it. Still I rise.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 11:26:56 AM EST
    Is this it? Poets.org attributes it to Angelou? As I said, Im no huge poetry fanm but, yeah, that's lytical and emotive, has a meter that flows naturally off the tongue, uses language with style, and is, well, poetic. (It doesn't huert it expresses ideas a little deeper than, I like me drugs, so hail me drug dealers.) Still I Rise by Maya Angelou You may write me down in history With your bitter, twisted lies, You may trod me in the very dirt But still, like dust, I'll rise. Does my sassiness upset you? Why are you beset with gloom? 'Cause I walk like I've got oil wells Pumping in my living room. Just like moons and like suns, With the certainty of tides, Just like hopes springing high, Still I'll rise. Did you want to see me broken? Bowed head and lowered eyes? Shoulders falling down like teardrops, Weakened by my soulful cries? Does my haughtiness offend you? Don't you take it awful hard 'Cause I laugh like I've got gold mines Diggin' in my own backyard. You may shoot me with your words, You may cut me with your eyes, You may kill me with your hatefulness, But still, like air, I'll rise. Does my sexiness upset you? Does it come as a surprise That I dance like I've got diamonds At the meeting of my thighs? Out of the huts of history's shame I rise Up from a past that's rooted in pain I rise I'm a black ocean, leaping and wide, Welling and swelling I bear in the tide. Leaving behind nights of terror and fear I rise Into a daybreak that's wondrously clear I rise Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave, I am the dream and the hope of the slave. I rise I rise I rise.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#34)
    by roger on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    Decon, Drug addicts/dealers would still be subject to laws against stealing, murder, etc. Abuse is a medical problem

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#35)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 12:50:04 PM EST
    Addiction is a medical problem, although even that is hard to categorize as solely a medical issue. Abuse/use is often not at all a medical issue. If I were to walk down the street and buy some drugs, there would be no "medical" issues involved in my subsequent use unless I became ill and needed treatment as a result. Importing, manufacturing and distributing drugs is clearly not a "medical" issue.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#36)
    by roger on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 03:30:51 PM EST
    Impotation, sale and manufacture should be regulated for purity, age limits, and tax. And of course you are right, I should have said "addiction". My bad.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#37)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 04:04:20 PM EST
    I'm ambivalent on the issue. When I was young and inexperienced I thought legalization was the way to go. What right does the government have to tell me what I do to myself? It doesn't harm anyone else so it should be beyond the government's reach, etc. Today, I recognize all too well the huge problems caused by our current regime, but I've also seen too many people ruined by drugs and also hurt badly by others use to still think an easy answer like legalization is the answer.

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#38)
    by roger on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 04:06:53 AM EST
    Decon, I'd rather see people mindlessly hurt themselves than be mindlessly hurt by the government

    Re: 99 Years (Plus 1) (none / 0) (#39)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 04:26:27 AM EST
    " I'd rather see people mindlessly hurt themselves than be mindlessly hurt by the government." As stated, I agree with that. I'm not convinced though that the issues present a stark either/or between our current irrational, unfair and oppressive laws and outright legalization. Complex issues are rarely amenable to simple all or nothing solutions.