Thank you for that wonderful Crime Bill, Joe Biden.
8
Most parole violations would lead to concurrent sentences. Surely justice has been perverted with this newest sentence that Mr. Rhines is serving. I hope he gets a lawyer fast. I would ask my son to take his case, but my son is not licensed in PA.
20
How would I spend life with no parole? I wouldn't as I would hang myself at the earliest opportunity. Notwithstanding the change in law discussed in this article - if I was faced with no hope, it's my own personal choice that I think it's better to be dead than living the rest of your life in prison.
6
Big pharma sells drugs that are more harmful than many street drugs for which people are put away to rot in prison.
Decriminalize drugs and stop this insanity.
13
An addict in our family, born into privilege and every opportunity, the recipient of numerous expensive and failed rehabs, and - most troubling - a felon with a record of selling similar amounts of drugs - is sentenced to no more than a few months at a time for his ongoing crimes.
Alas, Mr. Rhines should have been born a white male in Marin County, California. And now he has to serve another year for a probation violation? Absurd. Egregiously unfair. Where is a pro bono attorney to get this man who has turned his life around, against all odds, out of prison? Now.
55
I agree that mandatory minimums are abhorrent and the punishment should fit the crime - as well as the offender's repeat status - but it's not like this guy, or many others like him, are angels and not deserving of being in prison. He very obviously got away with many other crimes we don't know about. He gets out of prison after all that time and the first thing he does is violate? You can't fix everyone. Better to run prisons as labor camps so they can contribute to society and keep busy/earn their keep.
1
"The prosecutor on the case requested that the judge resentence Mr. Rhines to 30 years,"
I once watched a prosector in a probation violation case that would have send a person back to jail for years, tell the judge that the original conviction did not sit well with her and that when she went back and evaluated it she realized that the person had been overcharged with the crime. Instead of going to jail, he went home. There is no requirement that prosecutors always have to be as harsh as possible, but most don't understand that they are supposed to uphold justice, not their resume.
21
@Padfoot
I believe that many have political aspirations, and need to be viewed as tough on crime. A good example is ex-AG Kamala Harris, who resisted allowing DNA testing after the fact, and resisted agreeing to new trials after a lab was found to be doctoring samples in order to convict. Conviction rates and reputations are at stake.
13
I am in my mid-60s now. It seems like Republicans have had it all wrong my whole life. They succeed because they simplify all solutions (Lock her up!) to complex problems. I remember in the 1980s and 1990s when incarceration was all punitive; nothing about rehabilitation. Even today's Republicans don't want prisoners to vote even after they have served their time and been released!
I have been frustrated with Republicans my whole life. Punitive, vindictive, and with no belief in rehabilitation of anyone. Our society went after blacks because the assumption was that it was mostly them that were either dealing drugs or using drugs. Then, when whites got addicted to opioids, suddenly, incarceration went out the window and treatment for the addicted are now acceptable.
And, as true as it was in the 1980s, it is still true today. The largest debtors such as the trump, Purdue Pharma can declare bankruptcy and start all over again. The Big Banks of 2008 were too big to fail. Why is the system gamed for the wealthy? When will America live up to equal opportunity for all? Equal treatment for all?
27
This is good for Mr. Rhines and we will find out if it is good for society also by how well he does once released. We really don't know at this point but I am willing to give him another chance. But if he is convicted again for selling drugs, sorry but put him away for life this time.
I am not an expert on how to solve America's drug problem, but it seems obvious we need to stop the flow of drugs which means going after dealers. There has to be some fear of punishment by the dealers or they will keep dealing. So how do we keep a meaningful, deterring sentence but also think about those who have reformed and should be released? It is not an easy balance.
1
You could also not sell drugs. That's another option.
Selling drugs is not a victimless crime. It kills people. Users die, dealers kill other dealers, thieves kill dealers, they're the basis of just massive amounts of gang violence. Selling drugs is not an innocent activity. Also note that all crime statistics show huge decreases in crime since these laws went into effect.
I applaud Mr. Rhines for making good use of his time, and I don't disagree with him getting another chance per se. But non-violent drug possession crimes are a much different animal than non-violent drug distribution crimes.
2
@Mike I believe the article stated he sold drugs at a very young age in part to help pay off his drug addicted mother's tab....
8
@Mike
Did you read in the article where it stated he was forced to sell to pay off his mother's debts and that his suppliers said they would beat her if he didn't?
10
Of course Biden was involved in developing the Federal 3 strikes legislation, and together with Clinton was partly responsible for this cruel law.
4
The article didn't say which state arrested Mr. Rhines for the 18-yr-old parole violation. You'd think some recognition and mercy could be applied by that court, too. Thanks for a great story.
8
People who have the biologic predilection towards addiction, those who feel hopeless from an economy that isn't working for them, those who are abused, etc, often turn to drugs to cope.
Suddenly, they are viewed and treated like criminals.
What a waste of humanity.
6
What would I do? Read and exercise. Write letters and books. Play games by mail maybe. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison. The time obviously wasn't entirely wasted. Of course, Hitler spent only 9 months in prison. We obviously regret that time.
3
@Andy - If I recall, it was during Hitler's time in prison, that he wrote Mein Kampf, so we should have known ...
This is a good news story. Why would we put someone in jail for life for drug related crimes. Crazy. I want the dangerous folk who kill, main, rape, and drive drunk in jail for ever or at lest a long time.
5
Good for him. Maybe my sons should go to prison. They have done similar activities mentioned here -- including getting college degrees (in finance), on their own (our) dime, and they are still unemployed.
5
@A Parent x3
The man clearly or at least apparently has turned himself around, through positive force of will and building on what is good inside him, in a situation where most do not. I'm sorry your sons who went to college, etc etc, are currently unemployed but what on this blessed earth does that have to do with this point of this article?
14
Too bad the USA is not subject to the European Justice Court. America would be protected against its worst instinct...
9
If I were sentenced to a life behind bars, I would make every effort to finish my sentence as quickly as possible.
5
The Sackler's should be sentenced to life.
11
If I were given a life sentence, with no reasonable expectation of parole, I’d consider taking up knitting.
That, or contract assassination. Whatever would get me more cigarettes.
2
That last paragraph is gutting.
For all the talk of the Evil that is this current executive, note that this is happening right now and that 16 years of democrat power didn't remedy this situation.
There's reason to think we can work together to improve the lot of our country.
6
Please explain the 16 years.
2
Manifest despair can only describe this complete failure in how unjust the political attempts are to control Americans’ social and cultural issues. The criminal justice system has proved to be an ultimate failure. Drug abuse is best managed with medical and psychological treatment. Here we see the very sad situation where a man is imprisoned for life for what amounts to a handful of drug substances. Imprisonment in a federal facility is expensive, past figures suggest over $30 thousand a year per person. But importantly, drug problems are not solved by life or lesser sentences. Drug use predated recorded history; it’s part of the human condition. Why? We don’t know, but clearly, the lessening of drug sentences will fail to address the underlying human problem. In the early days of the country, an overwhelming alcohol epidemic appeared. Women's Temperance Societies arose to address the issue. Perhaps we could learn from that and other cultural experiences to address the issue. I feel sorry for this guy.
4
Thank you for this excellent article and I am very happy to see corrected this ridiculous miscarriage of justice. This needs to happen across the board and we can investigate relatively recent political history to see who was involved in creating our monstrous prison system. Oh and we need to get rid of private profiteering prisons - I mean really USA, how low do we need to sink.
Take a look at this op-ed then read about the Sackler family getting away with mass murder with their billions off-shored and we have a picture of how terrible this country has been to its citizens.
Best wishes for a very happy life Gary Rhines.
18
We have a long and despicable history of throwing away people we don't like and/or don't look like "us." Nice to see a small part of this starting to change.
23
The thrust of this article is to allow judges discretion as to the sentences which they impose. In absolute terms that is something I support.
However, I worked in my country's (Scotland) criminal justice system from 1975 until 2006. In the 1990's one of my teams had an offender referred from the High Court to be assessed for probation & community service. I prepared that report myself. I assessed the offender - it's a technical assessment which does not take into account the offence(s) committed - as suitable & he was placed on probation with a requirement that he performed 120 houres community service. His offence was attempted rape at knife point
I received a request from an offender for for a meeting. This man was subject to an identicle order as that above. His offence was a breach of the peace. He was also the uncle of the victim in the above case.
He asked me where the justice was in his sentence compared to the that imposed on his niece's attacker. I had no answer for him other than judges were able to impose whatever sentence the believed appropriate.
So yes, I approve of judges having a wide degree discretion in sentencing. However, that discretion should not be absolute. Judges must operate within guidelines which recognise proportionality in the relationship between the offence(s)committed & the sentence imposed.
@VambomadeSAHB
By the judge not having any discretion, the prosecutor is given all the discretion by choosing which crimes to charge the defendant with. This usually resulted in small time drug dealers getting long sentences since they had no useful information to give the DA, but the big drug dealers knew other big dealers, and could trade their names for reduced sentence. I'm sure most judges would be a lot fairer than any prosecutor.
10
Thank you President Trump for signing the First Step Act in December, correcting past injustices including Bill Clinton's 35 billion Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act,
7
I found the article confusing. Mr Wegman writes:
"Still, the law comes up short in important ways. The biggest is that its new reductions of sentences for drug crimes do not apply to past cases. That’s an especially glaring omission given that the First Step Act fixed the identical problem in the 2010 law. In other words, Congress failed to heed its own lesson: If a sentence is determined to be unjust, isn’t it unjust in all situations? Why should it matter when a prisoner was convicted?"
He described at length a "past case" (Rhines) where the law was applied but does not make clear the past cases to which it cannot be applied."
1
The First Step Act signed by Trump was a bipartisan bill voted by all Democrats, and all but 12 Republicans.
15
Reducing the minimum sentence from life to 25 years still leaves in place a barbaric, draconian punishment for a victimless crime.
11
Where are all the drug company executives and their marketing/dales leadership that PUSHED drugs that help cause the opiate problems we have today ? And the doctors that OVER prescribed the drugs. and the pharmacists who filled those outlandish scripts ? very professional...and profitable for them..
enjoying their profits. ? or in jail as drug pushers ?
And you wonder why minorities and poor people are angry ???
10
Huh. Life sentence for the poor guy vs. no imprisonment for the any member of the Sackler family or Purdue Pharma.
26
You don’t have to be a violent criminal to kill people and selling drugs that destroy lives is not a minor crime; whether it’s an individual on the street or a major corporation; both should be treated as severe crimes.
3
As the wonderful character Eddie Bunker said, “people can change.” Amen brother.
3
@Kate Who the heck is Eddie Bunker? Do you mean Edith?
If so, then it should be "amen sister". ("People can change" does sound like something she would have said.)
1
Holy toledo. The unfairness is so glaring that it hurts my eyes - and should hurt all of our consciences.
11
The abject stupidity of the system continues to shock me. The parole violation needs to dismissed. One can think of it as having run concurrently with the other 18 years served. The PO needs to open the file, read it, make the recommendation and get before a judge...otherwise..it's institutional foot dragging for no reason other than laziness.
9
@Harley Leiber Two different jurisdictions here. Parole violation petition for the earlier matter (it sounds like you have state offense #1, violated by the commission of the 2004 drug offense, and then the federal time on the drug offense. The parole violation was probably tolled by the serving of the federal sentence. It may well be that state authorities will resolve the parole matter in a different fashion. This man is right to retain counsel to straighten it out. It is part of his responsibility and to his credit he realizes it. Chances are the state will agree with you since he appears to be rehabilitated!
3
“Still, the law comes up short in important ways. The biggest is that its new reductions of sentences for drug crimes do not apply to past cases."
Having a law apply to circumstances that occurred before the law was passed is the textbook definition of an ex post facto law. These are specifically prohibited by the Constitution, I wonder how the writers of the First Step law got around that.
Also, when one makes the decision to commit a criminal act, one takes into consideration the law at that time. If one proceeds with the act, that is the law one should be sentenced under and the sentence one should serve. If a law was passed making the sentence for an action more severe and it was applied retroactively, would that be acceptable?
1
@michaelscody
A law can be considered Ex Post Facto solely if the law makes an act that was innocent when committed illegal or that increases the punishment for the crime. There is no stipulation that a law mandating sentencing can be reduced in severity.
5
@michaelscody- It would be comforting to live in a world as black and white as the one you describe. . No gray areas, nothing else to consider other than what is written. No need for judges or juries.
4
@James Watkins
The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, sec. 10, forbids the states to pass any ex post facto law; which has been defined to be one which renders the act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed. 6 Cranch, 138. This definition extends to laws passed after the act, and affecting a person by way of punishment of that act, either in his person or estate. 3 Dall. 386; 1 Blackf. Ind. R. 193 2 Pet. U. S. Rep. 413 1 Kent, Com. 408; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t.
Nowhere in this definition is there anything that allows for decreasing the punishment, it specifically prohibits changing the punishment after the fact. While it is commonly presumed that only increases are prohibited, I can find no citations supporting this belief.
2
I find this length of sentence so shocking. I couldn’t read the whole article. Once again.i am reminded that Canada and American share a long border and language.
We have legalized pot and all these older tv re runs that have the shocking crime of pot use just seem so old fashioned and ridiculous.
And speaking of ridiculous... sounds like your man in charge finally did something helpful to others. As we say to four year olds “good job”
9
To all those commenting that this is yet another article the Times is running that falsely makes it appear that criminals are victims, I have to wonder how limited your imaginations must be if you lack the ability to step outside of your own little worlds.
Can you not imagine what it would be like to have a mother addicted to heroin and to have to quit school at age 11 in order to keep food on the table? Can you not see that legal, even low-paying jobs aren't available to young people who can't afford the clothes and hygiene products necessary to make a good impression at job interviews? Do you not realize that even if they were able to secure one of those jobs, their salaries would not go very far in supporting them and their siblings? Do you not know that throughout the world children are born into cultures where hustling and theft are the norm and that getting ahead, even just surviving, often necessitates breaking the law?
The fact that Mr. Rhines was a model prisoner with real ambition despite the harshness of his sentence goes a long way towards proving that in a stable environment where mere survival was not the issue, he would not have ended up serving a life sentence.
I would imagine that many of those commenters who show no sympathy for Mr. Rhines would also dismiss Sander's and Warren's calls for an economy that works for everyone as unfair socialism when in fact an economy that works for only the top (sometimes criminal) 1%, is what is truly unfair.
40
Excellent reporting.
16
As other commenters have stated-it is hard to read this and not think of the Sackler family.
What if instead of the current deal on the table with Perdue Pharma (Company files for bankruptcy and Sackler Family forced to live out their days in opulent homes surviving on only the billion(s) of dollars they secreted out of the country into off shore accounts no longer able to launder their money as donations to Ivy League Universities and World class museums) the NY AG were to apply “the Draconian” crack era drug laws of 3 stripes and you’re out? And what if as a part of this application of justice required they use their ill gotten gains to fully fund their life time incarceration?
I lived in NYC in the 80s. A friend who was a cop walking the beat in Harlem back then when asked what to do about the crack epidemic would say “Instead of focusing on the corner dealers in Harlem selling small amounts of crack we should be arresting the white frat bothers from the suburbs who drive their BMWs into Harlem to by coke.” The former got 3 strikes and you’re out life sentences the latter got a slap on the wrist and made it back to West Chester/Greenwich / SaddleRiver in time for the party.
14
Why is state custody necessary now? Gee whiz. Just release him.
25
Three-strike laws still exist and even in this story carry a maximum sentence of 25 years. The idea, of course, is to lock up habitual offenders for many years. But rather than using evidence based definitions of habitual offenders, legislators have chosen baseball rules, which seems a particularly stupid way to determine maximum sentences. I suppose it's too bad that baseball rules didn't specify five strikes and you're out.
5
The Sacklers, who made a fortune pushing addictive drugs which have killed thousands and ruined millions of lives, get a fine that is barely a slap on the wrist for these billionaires. The whole family deserves life without parole.
19
Federal three strikes law requires at least one conviction of a serious violent felony.
1
And the Sacklers will go scot-free for far worse drug dealing.
5
Reading this piece on the heels of Ms. Huffman's 14 day jail sentence is jarring. Our criminal justice system articulates the obvious---Lady Justice is always peaking around the blindfold to see how much money is laid on her scales.
7
Of course, this article is all about someone who is in prison who shouldn't be there.
The child molesters, spouse killers, murders while stealing from someone... They are the ones who actually this article is talking about. Pretty much the only ones that would benefit by changes to the law.
Have some decency people.
1
Go, Mr. Rhines, go!
10
@Callie would you hire him? wanna bet no one will?
@hazel18 I'll take that bet.
3
@hazel18
Absolutely I would. Here is a person who persevered and made personal progress in a challenging situation. To me that speaks of someone who, given a chance, has a high probability of being successful as an employee.
4
"The prosecutor on the case requested that the judge resentence Mr. Rhines to 30 years, which was the term recommended under federal sentencing guidelines."
The law is insane and so is the prosecutor. I say this because if you compare this (30 years) to many violent crimes, you will find that those sentences are significantly less than 30 years. The sentencing guidelines don't seem to have things in perspective. I admit I am a lay person, not an expert, but I really don't get it.
8
The final paragraph says it all.
2
@Daniel Ackeret, it makes one wonder sometimes if prosecutors only approach to justice is vengeance.
4
@Daniel Ackeret I agree. Violation of probation laws are insane.
1
Read about the "Birdman of Alcatraz" for information about what a life sentence could be like. It was also made into a movie starring Burt Lancaster. Stunning performance.
1
I have been a victim of violent crime. I support harsh sentences for all those offenders.
Mr. Rhines is not one of them. His three relatively minor crimes nearly led him to life sentence. As it is, he served way too many years in prison, given the nature of his offenses. I'm pleased that a judge was able to reconsider the disproportionate sentence Mr. Rhines received.
And if I had a business hiring employees, and could use someone with skills and talents like Mr. Rhines, I'd absolutely hire him.
I wish Mr. Rhines all the best as he goes forward in his life.
24
Interesting to read about Norway's prison system and compare it to the U.S. system. Norway's maximum sentence is 21 years, and the recidivism rate is astonishingly lower than ours.
What is the purpose of imprisonment? I've often wondered about this. Is it for punishment or rehabilitation, or what?
We could learn a lot from other countries if we weren't so convinced that we're the best at everything, some of them being healthcare, criminal justice and drugs.
15
The Sacklers sold a ton of drugs which killed many people. You think they'll get life, or even 20 years?
20
@mlbex
Why isn't DOJ looking at the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma using RICO?
4
@John: I asked the same question in a different forum.
The fact that a minor criminal offence like that can result in a life sentence is one reason why Joe Biden is not the answer. That crime bill was a disaster. How can we be sure the Joe Biden won't be mislead again by his good intentions into doing something really dumb and damaging? This is especially true if he's so willing to compromise with Republican racists.
3
@617to416 "Really dumb and damaging?"...Have you watched our President lately? I'll take Biden's missteps any day.
@Robert Keegan
You mean the president who signed the First Step Act into law? He's doing much more for African Americans and prisoners (many of whom are African American) than any Democrat.
The original sentencing of this man constitutes "cruel and unusual punishement" and should be unconstitutional. Mandatory life with out parole for minor drug offenses should not be allowed.
14
Prison education is so valuable, even for lifers who do not get their sentence reduced / commuted. Those lifers don't riot, and do helpfully educate those who will not be in prison for life. But it's hard to look a father in the face and say that his daughter cannot have her tuition paid by the state but there's enough state funds that her rapist will get free prison education. Everyone who can be educated, rehabilitated and released should be, and thank you to those businesses who quietly hire ex-cons. And the states should be funding more education of all kinds; it's just a good common sense investment.
2
We now have these laws that enable us to go back to the original trial and sentence and do better. We are not yet at the point where we look back even further, that is, to when the crime was committed and what prosecutorial decisions were made in determining what offense to charge for.
It's the first prosecutorial decision that shapes everything that follows, and often race and class play into that decision as well. We're still fighting the battle about how to administer our criminal justice system in a way that treats equivalent offenses, and equivalent offenders, equally.
7
If we're serious about righting these wrongs, we need to invest some money here. These cases are slowly moving through an already overburdened legal system. Hire some lawyers and judges to move these cases along. Fund training and counseling for these folks. This doesn't have to take years and years - let's get these folks out of jail NOW!
20
If we're serious about righting these wrongs, we need to invest some money here. These cases are slowly moving through an already overburdened legal system. Hire some lawyers and judges to move these cases along. Fund training and counseling for these folks. This doesn't have to take years and years - let's get these folks out of jail NOW!
1
This is a breath of fresh air and I hope Mr. Rhines moves on to a successful life.
I do wonder what is in the minds of people who sell drugs today. Do they see this as an opening door? What about the many, many users who continue?
Lots of questions.
12
@Steve People selling drugs today do so for money. Some of them to make lots, some to survive.
3
@Steve
As the sister of someone who was an addict for 50 years, let me tell you that the penalties are not a deterrent. Drug addicts don’t plan ahead, their planning seems limited to the following:
Where can I get drugs now?
Where can I get money for drugs now?
Thank seems to be it.
1
If we are going to release long-term/lifer offenders, we should be releasing them with supports in place that guide them toward success (home, job, pro-social contacts) and not just send them out into a world that has changed so much from what they used to know. I wish Mr. Rhines every success on his journey.
30
@Katrin Another consideration for the successful release of those convicted of non-violent crimes is to remove the stigma of a lifetime label as a felon. This is a huge roadblock to successful reentry into society and should be rescinded when a person has served their time, including parole and probation.
17
Democrats want to make guns, especially assault weapons, illegal but at the same time they don't want to put people in jail. How will this work? The war on drugs was never really fought. The government allowed drugs to sold in my High School yet threatened us with arrest. In reality they made no effort to catch the drug dealers or punish them. A few unlucky people were arrested and some who refused to change their behaviour like Mr. Rhines went to jail for long periods. But generally, we never tried to enforce a zero tolerance policy. Kamala Harris is famous for having joked about her marijuana experience;she then became a prosecutor of drug offenses. If we make something illegal, we should enforce the law. If we aren't going to enforce the law, it should remain legal or become decriminalized. NYC's gun control laws are largely unenforced and people found in violation are minimally prosecuted. Do the Democrats intend to significantly increase prison populations with people convicted of firearm violations?
5
@Michael Green
I don't know. Possibly ask the GOP, since they so often appear to think they have the ability to read mind & determine what people's intent is? :)
7
@Michael Green The War on Drugs was a bad joke and a catastrophe. It created untold violence in our own cities and has been one of the major causes of intractable problems in Latin America. Our society is awash in dangerous drugs, alcohol, nicotine, pharmaceuticals while a few are arbitrarily deemed illegal. Read about the history of illegalization of marijuana. Study after study demonstrated that it was not a dangerous drug, yet all were dismissed because of the political beliefs of those in power. And millions have been imprisoned and had their lives ruined because of this one substance being stigmatized. As for your confusing conflation of drug problems and gun problems, I confess to not understanding it.
9
@Michael Green
"The war on drugs was never really fought."
Oh, it was ... it mainly was a war on POCs with drugs (hence, penalties for crack cocaine were higher than powder cocaine) and a look at who now is incarcerated shows the the outcome.
1
Gary Rhines's household background does not matter.
What matters is what Rhines did in prison to rehabilitate himself. For that, his early release is just.
The three strikes rule was beyond unjust.
Another example of the unholy union between politics and the justice system.
28
@Flaneur
"Gary Rhines's household background does not matter."
The real-life judges thought differently.
8
Among many discouraging aspects of this story is that Mr. Rhines had to be incarcerated in order to secure the job training that would enable him to put together a viable life.
133
@Brian Stewart
It is indeed discouraging, considering that Mr. Rhines probably sold drugs unaware that there were other, better opportunities available to him, even on the outside.
3
The misuse of drugs of all sorts in our society is a symptom of our social decay, lack of hope and a means to escape from that. Locking everyone up in our frustration who deals with these substances does not cure the problem. We need to find more humane ways of treating the underlying problem that contributes to the use of drugs in the first place.
By the way that this prisoner incarcerated for life should seek to create some meaning to his life in a horrendous situation is not surprising. After all we all do this in our own way in our limited time between birth and death. It is not the limitations of a situation, but how one feels about one's self that determines how we will react to adversity.
12
@just Robert, given Mr. Rhines' childhood story, it is obvious that the limitation of a situation can and does have an impact on how one feels about one's self. It can be overcome of course but that often involves some fortunate intervening event or person in one's life.
2
Thank you, President Trump, for signing the First Step Act which adds retroactivity to the reduction in sentencing. This helps a lot of people who are not of European heritage.
11
The crack craze of 1980s and 90s certainly required a wicked response and apparently it worked since those days are over, relatively speaking. It seems fair to give men like this a second chance at life after sixteen years in custody. We can always lock them up again if they stumble.
Certainly the sentencing guidelines were in need of modification, as there are few crimes that should remove discretion from judges to consider surrounding circumstances. Calling Mr. Rhines’ crime “relatively minor”, however, is not one of them. The sale itself may not have involved “violence or a weapon”, but the downstream impact almost certainly did. Sit in a courtroom on sentencing day sometime and witness how many of the violent crimes are linked to drugs - almost all of them. The “non-violent” sale of drugs is a fiction.
7
@HG
By your reasoning, everyone who sells a weapon that is later used in a crime should be jailed.
Drugs need to de-criminalized, legalized, and regulated, like marijuana.
No one should be in jail for a victimless crime.
1
If we were to criminalize the ingestion, sale, importation of alcohol we'd have a growing population of criminals, turf wars, gangs and killings in no time. The Criminal Justice System - from top to bottom - would also flourish: more police needed, bigger jails, more judges, more prosecutors, more defense lawyers, more probation officers. How wonderful for them. Oh, wait .... we tried that 100 years ago. How did that work out?
37
@Rethinking I was talking to an Attorney General/Procurador General of the state of Zacatecas MX - with the Colorado and CA and Washington State legalization of pot cartel activity was way down. Our "War on Drugs" quickly, some say by Nixon design, became a War on US Citizens which stimulated international crime and murders and like Prohibition in the 1920´s wreaked havoc on many.
4
Wonderful news...except the man is still in State prison! State prison conditions are typically very troubling; far worse than Federal. I pray he finds a lawyer to help him post haste.
48
@Hip2Be
Reminds me of the Joan Baez song "Prison Trilogy," the last verse about "Kilowatt."
President Trump has spent his entire adult lifetime committing financial crimes, cheating on his income taxes and testing government enforcement of the provisions of the Mann Act, yet he has yet to spend a single hour in jail.
Who was it that said "Crime doesn't pay," and what could he have been thinking about?
57
Thank you for writing this profile of a man who sounds like he can go far now. It is disgusting that the state felt a need to grab its pound of flesh rather than congratulating and helping him. I don’t have much but if there is a way to contribute some money to his future success I would be happy to. Anybody know how that could happen?
61
@Mark Schlemmer I'd help, too. Gladly. A Kickstarter campaign?
2
Sounds like Mr. Rhines was born with three strikes against him before he bumped into that Dickensian sentencing. Compare this to the light sentencing of the Sackler family and you realize that Mr. Rhines was in the right business he just should have been working for Purdue Pharma.
140
I'm wondering how his crime will play out against the background of the opioid crisis, in particular the Sacklers and all those nameless drug store owners peddling their drugs?
- Are all those people considered 'first time offenders', because the haven't been sentenced for illegaly selling drugs so far?
- has anybody of them held in jail, just for fear of fleeing the country or trying to cover their crimes?
- looking at the bulk (probably several tons of drugs), and the consequences (current estimate: 100.000+ casualties), would they be locked up for life, coming a process?
I think, this will put the US system of justice to a harsh test: Will a white family of crocks just be treated the same as small time colored offenders?
59
Excellent points all. I mean, my god, if anyone deserves life sentences it is the Sacklers.
9
We have got to start doing something about why people want to use illegal substances and then do something about it. Kudos to programs that support sobriety and building living skills.
The sentence just does not fit the crime here and in so many cases. This is the judicial system? What’s the justice?
12
Consider another type of story where a shorter sentence was issued and the individual is released only to commit a more serious offense. This is not to disparage the decision in the the Rhines case. It's to emphasize that law and legal decisions all require discretion, judgement, virtue and humility. Laws in and of themselves are blind. Justice involves human input. It would be good for the Times and other Media outlets to do some serious reflection and OP Eds on this.
2
@HPower
I think a case can be made that 'laws in and of themselves are not blind'. The eyes of law are the people who engage politically to answer their dissatisfaction with conditions in their community. In writing law, arbitrary prescriptions become the standard upon which mercy can intervene in the form of a judge's deliberation.
Unfortunately, rage on the part of their constituency allows legislators to write into law prohibitions against judicial prerogatives.
This is not fully satisfying; we see waxing and waning over time.
8
@HPower
You are reading it wrong. I don't think he committed a crime after he was released but the state is holding him for his previous crime ("the crime that led to his now vacated life sentance"), one that he was already serving time for in Federal prison.
4
@HPower
Nonviolent offenders rarely turn to violence after release.
To minimize the danger of selling cocaine because the bag of it weighs about as much as a bag of M&Ms completely ignores the incredible addictive power and danger of the drug. To then ignore that the perpetrator committed this illegal act 3 times is the height of folly. Would you want this man near your children's schools? If you feel drug dealers are not such bad criminals, would you allow them to live in freedom in your community?
4
@Dr B It has been my experience that nicotine, alcohol, & heroin are the most addictive, insidious, dangerous drugs. Why is it legal to be an alcoholic, but criminal behavior in every other regard? I reckon that there is nothing to fear as long as I have my BIG PHARMA prescription.
26
@Peter Close
If i'm not mistaken, the crime in this case was selling, or intending to sell, drugs.
It is, or was, illegal to sell alcohol at one time, but that proved politically unsustainable.
But there are laws restricting sales of alcohol, nicotine and heroin.
I think the answer to your question is that street drugs, apart from marijuana, don't have the support needed to become another big business (apart from the extent it already is via big pharma). As an underground business, it is doing just fine.
1
@Dr B
Cigarettes and alcohol are dangerous substances that are regulated and sold near schools.
Drugs could be decriminalized and regulated as well.
4
Prosecutors had the discretion that was taken away from judges, and they used it mercilessly. In addition to other changes, we need to focus on prosecutors who want to win cases and reelection rather than justice, which is their prime responsibility.
50
Mandatory minimums are inherently unjust because they transfer the sentencing decision from the judge to the prosecutor, who determines which provisions of law to enforce.. If somebody deserves to have the book thrown at him, let the judge do it, and if a small-time offender deserves a break, let the judge do that, too.
31
One sentence misrepresents what was actually going on:
" the nation was demanding ever tougher punishments"
Who is "the nation" to which Mr Wegman refers?
I wasn't demanding every tougher punishments, and I don't know anybody else who was. Who did? What political imperatives permitted the reduction of judiciary discretion to algorithmic madness?
Can't you see that the Big Data and machine learning systems are leading to the same place?
That some future Jesse Wegman will be writing about how automated judgement put into place by fear and manipulation is leading to similar absurdities?
40
The people who saw lives and communities ruined by crack. Tens of thousands.
I get it: Mr Rhines should not have received a mandatory life sentence. But Mr
Rhines did break the law and he made money off the destruction of entire families.
3
@Eben. One need only refer to the social media flash mob. Our current iteration of the thought police.
@willt26
Not true. Inner-city communities, where crack was most prevalent, did not demand harsher minimum sentences.
Those sentences were imposed by legislators mostly playing to and encouraging middle-class white fears in places where drugs had relatively little impact.
We’ve seen time after time that tough-on-crime bills have a largely racist basis.
Credit where credit due: Thanks to the Republicans who voted for this bill including Mr. Trump.
22
@Tony Mendoza
How true- not only that but remarkable and telling that the Republicans and Trump’s role in this bill passage are virtually an afterthought in every news account of this.
9
@Tony Mendoza At the same time, don’t forget that it was the Republicans who wrote the 3-strikes bills and got them passed in the first place.
53
@Tony Mendoza I agree. I am completely anti-Trump and completely anti-Trump, and I thank them both for voting for this bill and freeing Mr. Rhines. As you say, credit where credit is due.
3
Sackler family deliberately and aggressively pushes drugs into American communities and their opioid products allegedly take the lives of over 200,000 Americans. The response from federal and state law enforcement agencies? “Let’s just fine them, no need to consider criminal charges or prison time. “
You have to ask why there is such a disparity in the way laws are enforced and penalties applied.
207
@grinones
I don't know the details about what crimes members of the Sackler family could be charged with personally committing, but don't overlook the fact that the drugs in their case were FDA-approved and legally sold.
17
@LW
1.) so is (was?) morphine as a pain killer in certain medical situations. This doesn't qualify it for sale in drug stores.
2.) Some owners of drugstores noted the problem early on, when their sale on this suddenly soared, bring in lost of shady customers. Some even hinted this at the companies and the government agencies - this at least indicates criminal negligence.
3.) The habit provoking potential was obvious enough to make it into public lore, e. g. the television series Dr. House, and numerous action block busters.
10
@LW
"don't overlook the fact that the drugs in their case were FDA-approved and legally sold."
As are alcohol & cigarettes. If the addiction matters in one case, it matters in the pother as well, no?
8
What an absolutely shocking story. By that I mean the injustice of his sentence is shocking. I am another who almost always cannot support Trump but he did the right thing here. The fact that the state wants to keep him incarcerated despite the invalidation of the "crime" that he committed while on parole ... well, there are no words.
Congratulations to M.r Wegman and to Mr. Rhines.
79
Fantastic news, great column by Mr. Wegman.
We should all celebrate when Lady Justice peeks her head around the corner.
This is, to me, the only praiseworthy thing accomplished under trump.
But it is still praiseworthy.
85
Good for him! There are many more in our prison systems that have been given un-just sentences; where the punishment comes nowhere near fitting the crime. This is one little ray of hope shining from a dark, draconian "justice" system.
92