home

Bad Laws and Second Chances

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 06:28:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Serena Nunn's sad story has two happy endings. The story will sound familiar to those who haunt the criminal courts. Serena dropped out of school and started dating a drug dealer. Because she drove him around and talked to buyers who owed him money, she was charged with federal drug crimes. Despite being a first offender, Serena was sentenced to more than 15 years in prison.

The leader of the drug ring had a record that included substantial drug dealing, rape and manslaughter. He was sentenced to 7 years.

How could this happen? The leader was a serious criminal, and serious criminals are connected. He could barter information for freedom because his criminal accomplishments made him a valuable snitch. Serena wasn't a serious criminal, so she had little to trade. Does this seem fair? Only if you've ingested a hallucinogen.

Fortunately, Serena's story has two happy endings (so far): President Clinton commuted her sentence, and on May 6, she'll graduate from the University of Michigan Law School. Good for you, Attorney Nunn.

And good for Judge David Doty, who sentenced Serena. Judge Doty wrote an eight-page letter to President Clinton on Serena's behalf "that ripped the mandatory-minimum system to shreds."

In 1990, his heart went out to Nunn because of the lengthy sentence he was required to impose on her, while others in the drug ring were sentence to as little as one year. Doty wrote, "If mandatory-minimum sentencing did not exist, no judge in America, including me, would have ever sentenced Ms. Nunn to 15 years in prison based on her role in the conspiracy, her age and the fact that she had no prior criminal convictions before the instant offense."

Federal judges still cannot sentence below a mandatory minimum unless a prosecutor invites that reduction to reward snitching. After the Booker decision, federal judges should have discretion to sentence below the advisory sentencing guidelines to avoid giving the harshest sentences to the least culpable offenders, but some appellate courts think that fairness is an improper value to promote. Prof. Doug Berman highlights the problem here and here and here.

< FBI Wants Jack Anderson's Files | Reporters File Motions to Quash Libby Subpoenas >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bad Laws and Second Chances | 38 comments (38 topical)
    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 07:41:28 PM EST
    Serena wasn't a serious criminal, so she had little to trade. ... on May 6, she'll graduate from the University of Michigan Law School. Good for you, Attorney Nunn. So now she is (a serious criminal.) /sorry couldn't resist. Good for you, Attorney Nunn!

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#2)
    by Rick B on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 07:46:51 PM EST
    Just curious. Are you an attorney just because you graduate from law school, or do you also have to pass the bar exam? Though I do understand that some states allow you to practice law simply based on graduation from law school.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#3)
    by TChris on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 07:56:14 PM EST
    Rick, she'll need to pass a bar exam and gain bar admission to practice law.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:11:13 PM EST
    Yoiu know, if we took away the right of prosecutors to bargain on sentencing in return for a "snitch's" testimony against bigger criminals, I suspect we would prosecute far fewer big criminals. But I just don't know if that would be a net good thing for society. Of course, I realize that none of your clients are actually criminals.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:22:47 PM EST
    Technically, you're not an 'attorney' until, and only when, you are representing someone. Yeah, I know, pretty persnickety;-)

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#6)
    by orionATL on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:48:41 PM EST
    great story. too bad others similarly trapped are not this lucky. in any event, this is one of those rare moments when the forces of the universe line up in a way that provides justice and fairness to a specific individual. a moment all to rare.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edger on Tue Apr 18, 2006 at 08:52:20 PM EST
    Good on Judge Doty... the man was thinking, and did his best to see real justice done. Good for Clinton for listening. Would the current president have considered Doty's letter for even a second? And great for Serena Nunn. Maybe she'll accumulate a few spare 'second chances' during her law career that she can give away in future?

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 05:27:18 AM EST
    Excellent story, thanks for sharing this.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 05:35:32 AM EST
    It's good to know Clinton made appropriate use of the pardon/commutation power from time to time. Hopefully Bush will manage to do the same.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 06:26:42 AM EST
    I just hope that she doesn't run into trouble with the Character and Fitness committee because she did spend time in prison, commuted or not. (Getting admitted to the bar in most states is a three-step process. You have to pass the bar exam, pass the MPRE, which is the multistate ethics exam, and then you have to go through the character and fitness committee. Full background check, including fingerprints in some states.)

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 06:32:30 AM EST
    lionlag, Do you know of any examples of others with similar obstacles to overcome getting admitted?

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 06:35:49 AM EST
    sorry, lionelag...

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 06:36:14 AM EST
    How many thousands like her waiting for their pardon?

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 06:41:46 AM EST
    kdog, well... let's see. How about Rumsfeld, Rove, Libby, Cheney, Gonzales, for starters?

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    What's that rancid smell. Someone must have left rotting garbage on the thread. Excuse me, I am going to go vomit.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    Phew. Well... stray dogs peeing on the posts on thread street again?

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:10:01 AM EST
    Now that is soft on crime.
    No it is not.
    She fully deserve to rot in jail. The unfair thing, of course, is that the drug leader is getting only 7 years. He should get life (which luckily in some states, we have 3 strikes laws).
    Once again, you advocate more punishment. More proof of your status as a sadist. Every post you make devalues this blog. Since you continue to make these ridiculous statements, it is obvious you only post here to cause turmoil.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:24:15 AM EST
    I meant non-violent drug offenders rotting in jail for no good reason whatsoever edger. Your list would most certainly be undeserving of a pardon:)

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:25:08 AM EST
    macromaniac- He may be a sadist on some level, perhaps relishing punishment because he is such a good boy himself. Obviously he loves to get bashed, hence the noxious posts. Masochism is more like it. His posts cry out: Beat me beat me, I'm counting on it. Weird that....bloodthirsty, harsh as can be, yet he regularly asks to be smacked down himself. What a twistjob.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:35:04 AM EST
    Narius- You have obviously forgotten that while the left talks a lot about free speech, they do not welcome dissenting comments and will shout down anyone with an opposing view. Those that do not share their opinions are known as "trolls" and are not welcome here.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:49:00 AM EST
    Narius- You have obviously forgotten that while the left talks a lot about free speech, they do not welcome dissenting comments and will shout down anyone with an opposing view. Those that do not share their opinions are known as "trolls" and are not welcome here.
    JRT, Please... Take a good hard look at posts he has made in the past. Bloodlust is a kind word to define Narius' views. He has a complete disregard for the eighth amendment. If you want to defend him and his sick views, knock yourself out.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#23)
    by Johnny on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:51:23 AM EST
    JRT, it isn't his opposing views... It is his "Kill 'em all" attitude that actually sickens many, many sane people. His knee-jerk response to anything is "lock 'em up or kill them." I give him one kudo for consistency, but take away all his kudos for being a bloodthirsty sadist.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    Kdog, I agree. I was being sarcastic. I hope they wait an awful long, long, long time, and hope in vain. ;-)

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:07:13 AM EST
    jrt- The left is all for free speach. That does not remotely mean that we have to agree with it. Also honest debate is welcome. None coming from you though. Your comment above is not honest. A syllogism (false) at best, dim witted at worst.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#26)
    by roy on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:09:36 AM EST
    "Free speech" doesn't include the right to use others' property to distribute that speech anyway. Never has. Maybe we need a painfully obvious civics lessons 101 thread?

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 12:39:29 PM EST
    Posted by Squeaky April 19, 2006 12:07 PM jrt- The left is all for free speach. That does not remotely mean that we have to agree with it. Also honest debate is welcome. None coming from you though. Your comment above is not honest. A syllogism (false) at best, dim witted at worst.
    Of course you don't have to agree, but calling anyone who dissents a "troll" shows an active discouragement of differing opinions. I have on many occasions attempted honest to engage in honest debate and have consistently been met with juvenile angry quips in response.
    "Free speech" doesn't include the right to use others' property to distribute that speech anyway. Never has. Maybe we need a painfully obvious civics lessons 101 thread?
    I agree completely. Please keep that in mind when considering other "free speech" issues. If TL's policy is that only liberals shall be allowed to post here I will discontinue posting. TL, please advise. The civics 101 quip is an excellent example of the type of juvenile responses I get to honest postings. I will be happy to thougtfully respond to any post I have ever made.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#28)
    by roy on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    JRT,
    The civics 101 quip is an excellent example of the type of juvenile responses I get to honest postings.
    That's a fair criticism, and I apologize for the snarkiness. But you at least appear to claim that free speech is at odds with "not welcoming dissenting opinions" and the sort of "shouting down" that doesn't actually interfere with anybody's ability to comment. So this:
    ...while the left talks a lot about free speech, they do not welcome dissenting comments and will shout down anyone with an opposing view.
    Is really just:
    ...while the left talks a lot about free speech, they do things that don't have any real connection to free speech
    So I stand by my point, if not my snippy attitude. I won't comment on this further on this thread, it's already veering dangerously off topic, feel free to e-mail or ping me on an open thread.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 01:23:16 PM EST
    JRT:
    Narius- You have obviously forgotten that while the left talks a lot about free speech, they do not welcome dissenting comments and will shout down anyone with an opposing view
    Expressions of rabid slavering repeated sadistic bloodlust are exactly that, and nothing else. They express a psychotic desire for pain and death and suffering. They are not "opinions" or "other points of view" worthy of even the most minor debate, or of consideration of any kind. Supporting these expressions is equally unbalanced. They are not "dissenting comments" by any stretch of the imagination. This IS an opinion.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 03:37:55 PM EST
    I only support his right to his opinion. As for the left and free speech, there are countless examples of Republican and/or right wing speakers being shouted down during speeches. The prevailing leftist wisdom seems to be that the speakers are SO offensive that they do not deserve to be heard. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 04:11:39 PM EST
    You are wrong. Sweeping generalizations like "The prevailing leftist wisdom seems to be..." are not helpful. This is about Narius' posts, which are so offensive they do not deserve to be labelled "opinion", and are not made in any spirit of debate or discussion. The man simply likes to see and hear of people being killed. It obviously turns him on. It is sick. It is offensive. It is disgusting. It is illness. And it is repulsive. So is calling what he says "opinion". And so is encouraging him by dignifying it with that term.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#32)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 04:20:23 PM EST
    Yes when someone is so offensive I either walk away or turn off the media. The reason I said that your free speech comment was dishonest is that it has zero to do with narius commenting here. If narius got arrested for his hate speech, while say standing on a corner permit in hand, or for writing a hate filled editorial for The Sun, most here if not everyone would support the ACLU if it took his case on. Your conflation of the other commenters wanting to pull the plug on narius chatter here and first amendment rights is a crock. This is a bit like a private club of like minded people interested in discussion. Jeralyn is very generous in her comment policy to include those who take a contrary position to most here. What that has to do with first amendment rights is beyond me. Since you have not gotten it this long into the thread how about an analogy. You are having breakfast with your buddies. Someone comes in to the restaurant and sits down at your table. They start talking about blood rites and fecal probes. Are they expressing their first amendment rights or looking to get punched in the face? Funny how confused you guys are about the constitution.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 07:11:09 PM EST
    Squeaky- I am not at all confused and I will gladly discontinue posting if asked to leave this "private club". I wish the left was more consistent in their opinion of private clubs-see Augusta National. I do not know Narius' posting history, but the post that I referred to was certainly not vile.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 07:23:41 PM EST
    JRT-
    I am not at all confused and I will gladly discontinue posting if asked to leave this "private club"
    Your words not mine. Nice try,

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 07:35:06 PM EST
    If any two of you, or Jeralyn ask this will be my last post. All I ask is that you remember that private clubs have the right to choose their members.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:56:59 AM EST
    Apparently my opinions are welcome(though not appreciated), but my offer still stands.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:04:11 AM EST
    edger-- depends on the state. I know of one case in Pennsylvania where a guy who did time for manslaughter a couple decades earlier in his life got through character and fitness. But then, one of the people I knew in law school who didn't make it through had only a few misdemeanor DUIs on his record. Every jurisdiction generally has a handful of lawyers who specialize in helping difficult cases get through the process. Presumably, she'll get some help from one of them. Other states handle things differently-- Illinois wouldn't allow Matthew Hale, the white supremacist, to be admitted to the bar, even prior to any of his criminal convictions. He took the case all the way to the US Supreme Court (which denied cert), and lost-- states pretty much have the right to admit anyone they want, provided they're consistent about it.

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 05:35:45 PM EST
    Every jurisdiction generally has a handful of lawyers who specialize in helping difficult cases get through the process. Presumably, she'll get some help from one of them. With Clinton being a lawyer as well as the president who commuted her sentence, it would be interesting to see the wording of that commutation, and I wonder, will it be part of the material the character and fitness committee considers?

    Re: Bad Laws and Second Chances (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jun 01, 2006 at 03:53:31 PM EST
    Here is a real policical hot-potato. Does an ordinary citizen have the right to bring evidence of judicial corruption directly to the grand jury, without being filtered through a (beligerent) judge? Go to: judgesabovethelaw.com Michael Lee

    Bad Laws and Second Chances | 38 comments (38 topical)