Is this sentence fair . . ?
For . . ONE COUNT of possession of heroin with intent to distribute to a person under 21 (not forgetting that Ricky was only 20 himself, and the 'person under 21' was another known heroin addict)
In the court transcript, when deliberating sentencing under the statute, the Judge stated "I will not sentence pursuant to the guidelines . . I will not consider a sentence under those guidelines . . . I do want a sentence that will take away from you any opportunity to ever again deal in heroin . . . this judgement means that you will be under the control of the United States Government until age 80 . . you were both equally culpable and should be taken off the streets . . for the remainder of your life"
This saw Ricky - a 20 yr old non-violent first offender, and Lopez a known and established drug dealer, being held equally culpable? BUT - it's worse than that - MUCH WORSE . .
In deciding on a sentence to be under US control until the age of 80, Ricky's sentence was unfairly weighted by his age:
Arnold Lopez (33 at sentencing) - a known drug dealer received a 35 year sentence
Ricky (21 at sentencing) - first offence received a 47 year sentence + 12 years probation
How is that fair sentencing??
This is unfair, lacking equity, against sentencing guidelines, is improper use of Ricky's youthful age, is totally imbalanced and is not based on any recognised factors.
By that reasoning, had Ricky been 50 at sentencing, he would have got an 18 year sentence.
Ricky's tender, still developing age was used ruthlessly against him.
Please click on the images below to view the sentence and related 1 count charge
IS THIS FAIR AND JUST?
HOW CAN THIS BE CONSIDERED JUSTICE?