Marijuana.com

Buzzby

Two Years in Jail for a Joint?
The Drug War, and the hard-nosed zealots who wage it, have reached new lows in Massachusetts
Anthony Papa | AlterNet | 04/14/2006

The War on Drugs reached the pinnacle of cruelty when 18-year-old Mitchell Lawrence was sentenced to two years in jail for selling a teaspoonful of marijuana to an undercover police officer for $20.

On June 30, 2004, detective Felix Aguirre, employed by the Drug Task Force, was assigned the duty of going undercover to buy drugs from kids who hung out in a parking lot in Berkshire County in Massachusetts. Merchants had complained to police about the kids. Mitchell Lawrence was there with his pipe and a few buds of marijuana. He had no idea the parking lot was less than 1,000 feet from a preschool located in the basement of a church, nor did he know this parking lot was the site of a police sting operation.

Aguirre approached Mitchell and asked him if he had any weed. Mitchell pulled out a small bag of marijuana. The cop offered him $20. Mitchell hesitated; Aguirre insisted. Mitchell, who had seen Aguirre hanging out with other kids, motioned the cop to follow him up the street where he intended to smoke with him. Aguirre waved the $20 in his face. Mitchell, who was broke at the time, took the money, the first time he had ever accepted money in exchange for marijuana.

In the months that followed, Aguirre approached Mitchell again for marijuana. This time, however, Mitchell refused. Weeks later, a crew of undercover cops stormed Mitchell's home and placed him under arrest. Mitchell was found guilty of distribution of marijuana, committing a drug violation within a drug-free school zone and possession.

On March 22, 2006, Mitchell Lawrence was sentenced to two years in prison.

While this outrageous case happened in a sleepy burg in Massachusetts, the case of Mitchell Lawrence is one of countless tales of drug war madness that takes place on America's streets daily.

Mitchell Lawrence's story was eerily familiar to me. In 1985, I was the subject of a police sting operation after passing an envelope containing four ounces of cocaine to undercover officers in Mount Vernon, New York. I was set up by someone who offered me $500 to transport the package. The individual who introduced me to the cop was an informant facing life in prison. He was offered a deal -- the more people he helped ensnare, the less time he would serve. I received a sentence of 15 years to life under New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws.

Mitchell Lawrence's disproportionate sentence was handed down one day before the release of a national report by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) titled, "Disparity by Design: How Drug-free Zone Laws Impact Racial Disparity and Fail to Protect Youth," which includes research from Massachusetts.

The JPI study, commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance, found that drug-free zone laws do not serve their intended purpose of protecting youth from drug activity. The Massachusetts data on drug enforcement in three cities found that less than one percent of the drug-free zone cases actually involved sales to youth. Additionally, Massachusetts researchers found that nonwhites were more likely to be charged with an offense that carries drug-free zone enhancement than whites engaged in similar conduct. Blacks and Hispanics account for just 20 percent of Massachusetts residents, but 80 percent of drug-free zone cases.

"School zone laws have remained unchanged in Massachusetts because the legislature has been promised that prosecutors use discretion," said Whitney A. Taylor, executive director of the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts. "Unfortunately, the life of a young man has been sacrificed, proving that discretion is not being used, and that the law must be changed."

Mitchell Lawrence was not the only person arrested in an undercover drug operation in the summer of 2004. There were a total of 18 others, including five young people who are still awaiting trial for alleged sales that took place at the same Great Barrington parking lot.

District Attorney David F. Capeless is the man behind Berkshire County enforcement and entrapment. Capeless is a hard-nosed drug war zealot, who insists that these laws are effective in combating drug use -- even if it means ruining a young man's life in the process.

Mitchell Lawrence was set to graduate from high school this spring. Instead, he will watch his fellow classmates graduate from his prison cell.

The common thread between my case, Mitchell's case and drug-free school zones nationally is the abuse of power from the prosecutors through the application of mandatory minimums. These laws handcuff judges and force them to impose harsh sentences.

Mitchell Lawrence's conviction inspired a group of concerned Berkshire County residents to seek Capeless' ouster in the upcoming district attorney race. Defense attorney Judith Knight answered the call to fill this role. Knight, a former assistant district attorney for Middlesex County, said Mitchell Lawrence's conviction was "the tipping point" for her decision to run against Capeless in the upcoming Democratic primary election in September.

"A tough prosecutor is tough on crime and also has the ability to demonstrate compassion and insight when the case calls for it," Knight says. She hopes to follow in the footsteps of David Soares, who ran for district attorney and defeated Paul Clyne in Albany, New York, in 2004. Soares ran a race primarily on the platform of Rockefeller Drug Law reform. He easily defeated the sitting district attorney, who refused to change his views on the draconian drug law legislation of New York.

It is heartening that communities like Berkshire County are fighting back and attempting to hand reckless district attorneys and other politicians the pink slip. Choosing to destroy lives and indiscriminately apply laws does more harm than good, ultimately, and it doesn't make our streets any safer.
--
Anthony Papa is the author of "15 To Life: How I Painted My Way To Freedom"

__________________

 

nacrypt

2 years is nothing compared to the 20 that Schapelle Corby has been sentenced to.

Smoking marijuana is no more immoral than drinking alcohol. I (like every other person in the US who chooses to use marijuana) DON'T CARE WHAT THE LAW SAYS!!!

Anyone who would put a person in jail for marijuana is commiting the vilest kind of evil. They are needlessly taking away the very thing that so many Americans have died for: FREEDOM.

I don't care how shiney your badge is, if you do this to fellow human beings for whatever idiotic justification then it is YOU not them who deserves a very cruel punishment.

Little Nicky

Although I agree with you about the legal status of pot, you really can't blame the police for enforcing the laws they are told to enforce. Yes, 2 years or 20 is way to long for someone to go to jail for marijuana.

Ilove#

That is such bullshit and should totally be called entrapment or something. I'd bet most people would transport an envelope for $500, specially the less economically advantaged (ie: poor/immigrant/single mothers/non-rich-white-men). I wonder if you could set up a valid defense by making sure that the envelope is sealed and claiming you were just a courier and had no idea what was in it...

Anyway, just another example of crazy drug laws ruining more lives than they are protecting.

troublemaker_42

Obviously, you have no idea what the legal definition of entrapment is. Being given the opprotunity to commit a crime, no matter how lucrative it is is, is not entrapment.

As for nacrypt's comment about Corby.....theres a world of difference between selling a joint, and being caught transporting multiple pounds of cannabis across international boarders. Theres a reason the two sentences were vastly different. Not only is the amount of marijuana involved drastically different, but also the jurisdiction issues are VERY different. The fact is, the two cases are so vastly and completely different, a comparison of the two makes no sense, and serves no purpose. I'm not saying I believe Corby is guilty, or that I believe her to be innocent. All I'm saying is that the two cases are so dramtaically different that comparing them is basically pointless.

 

troublemaker_42

Thats the funny thing about laws. You can't pick and choose which ones should apply. Would you think that the law should punish someone who kills your mother? What makes you different than the muderer who believes his crime is not immoral, and that, therefore, the law shouldn't apply to him? Your views on whether or not somehting is moral has absolutely NO bearing on a law's power. I don't blieve marijuana should be illegal, but I am quite aware of the law. Until its changed, all I can do is actively work towards it being changed, and take action to minimize the chances I'll be arrested.

Sage

actually, entrapment is either:

1.) Improper manner of inducement by police

2.) Improper selection of target for inducement (racial discrim)

3.) Improper relationship between offences. Offence committed to obtain evidence was disproportionate to offence to be prosecuted (smoking is not the same as selling, according to facts, it could be said mitchell had no intention to sell, instead smoke)

The evidence could be excluded on discretionary grounds that it was illegally obtained (breach of procedure) , however this is highly tentative and at the judges discretion.

Also I do not think teh report, coming from DPP would have any affect on the judiciary, instead bring it up to your elected officials!

TheNewGuy

Ok, normally I take the "cops are just doing thier job" approach, but I feel like I need to elaborate on that. While I do want police to do what my tax money is paying them to do (Enforce the laws of my state) I also believe they have a responsibility to place a higher priority on some laws than others.

Example: More police should be solving murder cases than marijuana cases.

And police DO have the right to choose what laws they wish to enforce, in a way. If you are seen speeding by a police officer, he is under absolutely no obligation to pull you over. He can choose who he personally wants to pull over, using his own discretion.

A cop does not technically have to arrest you for selling marijuana. He can decide, based on the circumstances, if you are a real threat or not. He can see a guy that looks like he's about to rob a place, and then see a guy selling weed, and decide which he wants to pursue. It was up to this cop to decide if he wanted to arrest the guy for selling a whopping $20 worth of weed.

So again, cops might just be doing thier job, but its up to them to decide whats more important: Arresting people for selling small amounts of weed, or going after real criminals (rapists, murders, thieves, etc).

As for DEA agents, keep in mind that a good deal of people being arrested by them aren't exactly winners at life. People selling hard drugs to minors, or selling amounts that one could overdose ten times over on isn't exactly responsible behavior whether you think drugs should be legal or not, and those people should be in jail. Many of them don't deserve what they get, but some of them definitely deserve it. The problem here is that we have cops placing more emphasis on small amounts of marijuana rather than catching people selling heroin to high-schoolers.

So start writing your local reps and donate a joint's worth of cash a month to an anti-prohibition organization, so we don't have to bitch about this kinda stuff anymore.

__________________
"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~P.J. O'Rourke

Little Nicky

I believe the vaste majority of cops do use some latitude when enforcing the laws. I've seen on "Cops" where the police would just dump out the pot on the ground and lecture the person. I know its TV but its supposed to be "reality" tv.
The warning on a traffic stop instead of a ticket is another good example. The cops would much rather be chasing a bank robber than busting someone taking a bong hit.

Tolerance4all

With murder there is a victum, and the act is violent. Selling $20 worth of Cannabis to a seemingly fellow user does not include either.