A bill ending the 10-year mandatory minimum for first- and second-time convicted drug offenders will untie judges’ hands to consider each case on its merits and hand out appropriate sentences. The legislation passed the House 85-55 earlier this week and now crosses over to be heard in the Senate.
“The theory behind that is that the judge who oversees the case who has seen all the motions, who has heard all the arguments from the both the prosecutor and the defending attorneys, who has heard the evidence in the case, the judge is probably the best-situated person to make a determination on the fate of the defendant who is found guilty,” Delegate Curt Anderson, the bill’s sponsor, testified during a second hearing on Monday after the amendments were added to the legislation.
In the zeal to address an epidemic of drugs in the 1990s, Maryland, along with legislatures across the country enacted mandatory minimums in a kneejerk, fear-driven reaction. Even relatively minor offenses brought heavy penalties. The result, some two decades later, is crowded jails from a too-strict policy that targets mostly people of color.
And while we understand a “tough on crime” stance plays well for politicians trying to show they’re protecting their constituents, a more common sense approach is to allow each justice to tailor a sentence that, to use the old saying, allows the punishment to fit the crime.
We understand the objections to this bill, especially during a time when the prevalence of heroin has become such a pressing public-health concern. But as a society, we won’t be able to punish our way out of this problem by treating the drug addicted as criminals. We can see all too clearly how heavy sentences and locking up even minor offenders has failed and in some cases made the problem worse.
After debate on the House floor, Friday, mandatory minimums were retained to deter third- and fourth-time offenders — 25 years for a third offence and 40 years for a fourth. And, appropriately, mandatory minimums are still in place for so-called “kingpins,” volume dealers and manufacturers.
Cleaning up marijuana laws
Mandatory sentencing was not the only drug-related legislation discussed on a busy Monday in the House. Last week, lawmakers passed bills cleaning up an inconsistency left over from last year’s session, when lawmakers effectively decriminalized possession of 10 grams of marijuana or less but left possession of drug paraphernalia a chargeable offense. On Monday, House members debated allowing those on parole or probation to possess small amounts of pot.
This is a logical fix. Maryland’s decriminalization of marijuana possession made having the drug a civil penalty, not a criminal one. To reflect this, the original bill’s references to marijuana were revised. Instead, parolees or probationers won’t violate their status as long as they haven’t committed a “nonjailable offense,” according to The Washington Post.
(8) comments
If you do the crime do the time. Don't like the amount of time; get a job and become productive like most law abiding citizens. We make it too easy for these folks to be cuddle in life instead of them taking responsibility for their actions especially illegal actions. This opens the door for corruption of the judges in the sentences they give. Also tired of hearing how minorities are getting the bad end of the deal with illegal activities. Do the crime do the time.
I'm tired of the jails being filled with pot smokers.
It should be decriminalized and the cops should be focusing on more violent crimes.
If it wasn't for this nation's wealth there would be fewer jails and prisons.
Your neighbor is probably pot smoker but he's never gotten caught.
We need an objective study of what the real economic and social costs of legalizing marijuana including the increase in other crimes. Colorado and Washington State have volunteered to be the guinea pigs for this study we just need someone to gather and crunch the data for us.
Mara-joo-wanna is bad, mkay?
Maryland, along with legislatures across the country enacted mandatory minimums in a kneejerk, fear-driven reaction...never let your fear lead you, you will always make the wrong decisions.
The result, some two decades later, is crowded jails from a too-strict policy that targets mostly people of color...finally sunk in did it? Seems we were also afraid of the "colored people" as well, which is one of the reasons mandatory sentencing laws were easy to pass, because of our fear of anything non-white. It was white-people that passed those laws.
Looks like we are, at least in Maryland, waking up to the fact that we don't need to fear people that are not white, especially do not need to fear people that smoke a joint. We are like way to uptight about that stuff because we have failed to think past our noses and have believed all of this misinformation about Pot and other non-prescription drugs, none of which is true.
Well yeah--But as a society, we won’t be able to punish our way out of this problem by treating the drug addicted as criminals. We can see all too clearly how heavy sentences and locking up even minor offenders has failed and in some cases made the problem worse...if you were not a criminal when you went in, you will certainly be one when you get out. [wink]
Virtually no one is in jail or prison in MD for simple possession of MJ. I takes MJ dealers several convictions for distribution to do any time.
Easy fix in DC,big lines for the drug. make it legal and tax it plenty
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.