It doesn't bother you that our society views dealing cocaine as a more heinous crime than strangling a human being to death?  Judging by the two sentences handed down to this man, that appears to be the case.  

You don't like the war on drugs? Neither do I. But until we elect some politicians with backbone - well, first we have to find some politicians with backbones - and dealing drugs remains illegal, then sell drugs at your own risk.  

As for the girlfriend, she's not a multiple convicted felon with a murder past. Anytime else, people would be cheering that the authorities diverted her to rehab. Why is it suddenly wrong when her boyfriend hits his 3rd strike?

I doubt they had to massage the case, as you put it. Chambers didn't even put up a fight. Because he did what they alleged, and he made the best deal he could. He didn't want to face a jury of his peers.

And finally, why is the fact someone is a drug addict suddenly a defense. Who do you think commits most of the property crimes, the armed robberies? A high percentage is people with substance abuse problems who can't hold a job because of their habit. Crack is not cheap, when you get high every few hours.

Quoting from the NY Times:
"After neighbors complained about a constant stream of strangers to and from the pair's door, the police mounted an undercover operation. Over the course of three months, the authorities said, officers bought 246 grams of cocaine for $9,600 from Mr. Chambers and Ms. Kovell, an amount that could fetch $20,000 on the street.

When the police went to arrest the pair late Monday, no one answered the door, so officers used a battering ram to break it down. Once inside, the authorities said, the police found crack pipes and several grams of cocaine. Mr. Chambers struggled violently with one officer and broke the officer's wrist, the authorities said."

Another NY Times quote:
"Neighbors noticed problems. The News quoted Maggie Diaz, 64, a longtime resident, as saying, "People here had been talking to the police because there was a lot of in and out," while Amber Youell, 28, a next-door neighbor, said that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Kovell often fought and that he would lock her out of the apartment."

A third NY Times quote:
"Mr. Chambers generally acted as a middleman for friends, moving tens of thousands of dollars of drugs -- primarily cocaine, but also crack and marijuana -- through his apartment over a few months. He collected about 30 percent profit -- but he and Mr. Kovell spent much of that profit on drugs, according to The Post. The Post also reports that the East 57th Street apartment had a fetid stench and was littered with plastic bags that had once contained drugs. Police officers used a battering ram to enter the unit after no one answered the door. Mr. Chambers put up a struggle, and several officers were injured. Three had broken bones: one a hand, a second a thumb, and the third -- a police captain -- a toe."

Quote from New York Magazine:
"Their one-bedroom at 357 East 57th Street, apartment 5B, could sell for about $500,000 to $700,000, according to real-estate Websites we checked...it was tips and calls from 311 <vigilant neighbors> that eventually led police to Chambers' door."
Is Credico really suggesting that the NYPD would ignore the multiple complaints from people living in half million dollar apartments about someone in the building dealing drugs?  That strains credibility.

Quoting Credico again
"Now, they are sending Chambers to jail for 19 years for a small time drug deal."

No, Chamber pled guilty after being charged with eight hand-to-hand buys by officers, plus possession charges, plus the assault on the 3 police officers. That's a lot more than "a small time drug deal." His prior convictions make him a habitual offender for sentencing purposes.

Credico again:
"In truth, he's nothing more than a hopeless and hapless drug addict."

See the NY Times quotes. Chambers primary source of income is selling cocaine. He's an addict who sells to other poor addicts. Why does his being an addict himself give him some kind of immunity that a non-addict dealer would not qualify for?

Credico:
"It is about Chambers being sentenced to more time now for a nonviolent drug offense than he did for a homicide."

As an experienced trial attorney, you of all people know that lawyers don't get to chose the quality of their cases. The government took a 15 year plea from Chambers in the murder, because they considered 15 firm years and a felony conviction better than an acquittal. I'm sure they were disgusted having to accept that plea, but that's how it works when your case is weak. The sentence length in the manslaughter conviction has no bearing on the justice of a longer sentence for drug dealing. This kind of sentencing disparity happens every day in a court somewhere, and it's usually about the relative strength of the defense and prosecution cases. That's all. Declaring outrage over a drug sentence being longer than a manslaughter case is disingenuous at best coming from someone like Credico who has experience with the system.

Credico again:
"Why wasn't Chambers offered the same chance at recovery instead of going to prison?"

Because he is multiple convicted felon, including a criminal homicide. Because he assaulted the officers, injuring three. Because the girlfriend has never been convicted of a crime. Because that's the way sentencing works. But Credico knew that.  He just didn't say it.

Credico:
"Chambers was selling small bags of drugs to feed his habit when the police got wind of it from an informant."

See the quotes above and in my previous post. The neighbors complained a number of times, drawing police attention to Chambers. They probably didn't even know who lived there until after they began an investigation. I don't doubt they were thrilled when they realized who was selling the drugs. But that's not what Credico alleged.

Credico:
"After more coaxing from undercover agents, the whacked-out Chambers got his supplier to front him a few ounces of cocaine. "

See quotes above from the Times. Chambers MO was to act as a middleman, probably because no one would trust him with any weight. The police didn't put the idea in his mind. They simply allowed him to do what he normally did. I don't recall seeing anything about an entrapment defense. That is what Credico is alleging, isn't it? If Chambers had a viable defense, why plead guilty without a trial?

Next to last Credico quote:
"Let's be honest. Robert Chambers isn't going to prison for his drug offenses. Rather, he's going to prison for the death of Jennifer Levin - again."

I repeat - he's going to prison because he pled guilty to multiple counts of selling cocaine, possessing cocaine and assaulting three police officers, and because his sentence, had he gone to trial and been convicted, would have been even longer from enhancements of prior multiple felony convictions, including that big one for homicide. There's no way to unlink the present charges and the prior homicide conviction. That's the way the system works. The Chambers' sentence, given his priors, is not an anomaly.  

One last thing. Credico has been on record as complaining the NYPD arrest too many people for marijuana. "These cops are making Mickey Mouse pot arrests - what a waste of time and money."
or
"I think they should stop these meaningless <marijuana>arrests and use their time and resources to find better ways of going after real criminals."
Now he's complaining that the NYPD is arresting a convicted killer who was selling hard drugs, after multiple civilian complaints?  

And some statistics from 2007, the last year they seem to be available:
in 2007, the NYPD convicted 23,489 people for felony drug charges. About 14% were given prison sentences. That other 86% received local jail time, probation, time served, etc. That's quite a few cheap publicity stunts. Or was Chambers the only cheap publicity stunt, and the other 23,488 just routine police work?

Credico has an agenda. He is entitled to those opinions. in fact, I probably agree with much of what he thinks about drug laws. But if the laws are on the books, then people convicted under those laws really have no complaint. They knew what they were doing had penalties, yet they did it anyway. Credico writes this story starring Chambers as the victim of scheming cops and sleazy lawyers. Looking at the facts as reported elsewhere, I must have missed that part.

Chambers is a victim of his unwillingness to follow the rules, not the NYPD or the Manhattan D A. They just did what we pay them to do, arrest and convict the guilty. They wouldn't be human if they didn't experience some glee that a killer who escaped the full consequences of his prior acts had again broken the law and put himself in jeopardy.