When I came to the US 46 years ago I met some people I have stayed friends with and still know although we don’t see each other much these days living 3000 miles apart. I was the best man at their wedding as they came out west to get married.
James
is a black man and I’m pretty certain he came from the South. Why I raise this
is he told me he spent a few years in prison in his youth and it was for
possessing a small amount of marijuana for personal use. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez pointed out the number of persons of color that languish in
California’s prisons for marijuana possession, some of them for years and some
for life under three strikes law I’m sure. Of course, people of color are
disproportionately represented here but all poor people will be affected. Now
pot has been legalized these people should be freed or have their time reduced,
whatever is appropriate.
The
letter below to a NY State Senator is from Bill Galvin, a friend who was also
an AFSCME member like me but now has his own law practice. What is interesting
about it for me and I think, our readers, is that it raises issues that so many
of us might never consider. It is also a
reflection of how movements and at times mass movements can and will affect
consciousness in all sectors of society. Like AOC’s comments about the pot
laws, a change that is proposed in this letter would have a significant affect
on the lives of huge numbers of people. For some, it might mean freedom from
incarceration. Hopefully this letter will encourage others in the legal profession to think about this issue and take measures to correct it in your area.
I’ll
let the letter speak for itself.
Dear
Senator Salazar:
Congratulations upon your election. I'm an attorney who has practiced in criminal defense for quite a few years and, upon that experience, I would like to propose to you some amendments in New York's Penal Law to make things a bit fairer. You're not my particular senator, but I think mine wouldn't be at all receptive to my ideas; I'm in Senate District 43, and my senator is a Republican. I've never written a missive like this before but, like you, I'm a socialist, and I feel that you represent me more than does Senator Daphne Jordan.
Please consider our Penal Law. One way a person can commit the felony of grand larceny is by stealing $1,000 or more or by stealing something worth $1,000 or more. If a person steals something less than that, it's just a misdemeanor. That $1,000 threshold has been there since Jesus was a boy. Indeed, calling $1,000 "a grand" has made it into slang.
For a person to have stolen something worth $1,000 back in, say, 1930, that person would have had to steal something of enormous value, because $1,000 then, due to inflation, had far more purchasing power than $1,000 today. I find it hard to believe that those who were our legislators back in the days when grand larceny was first passed considered how little $1,000 would become; these days we talk of trillions of dollars the way our grandparents used to speak of millions. Today, though, defendants are charged with felony larcenies for valuations that in number are the same, but in true worth are much less. I call this "felony creep."
I ask you to consider proposing a bill to amend the grand larceny statutes substantially to raise the threshold for grand larcenies and, at some periodic point like every year or two, to raise the threshold value of grand larcenies with inflation. Given the effect of second-felony-offender and persistent-felony-offender statutes, I'm sure that there are plenty of people serving time in state penitentiaries for grand larcenies that, if you buy my argument, should be guilty only of misdemeanors. Of course, the bill should ask for retroactive effect, and quite a few people should get their right to vote, as well as other rights and benefits, back.
This principle of "felony creep" applies equally to other offenses with value thresholds. For example, if one damages another's property to the tune of $250 or more, that's a felony criminal mischief. But that $250 limit has been around forever, and it has never been adjusted for inflation. Though I like the term for it's use of "creep," feel free to use it just as if you had made it up yourself.
The law adjusts for inflation all the time. Fines and surcharges rise, verdict awards rise, filing fees rise, rents rise, and businesses are always protecting their interests by making sure that inflation is taken into account in their dealings and in the laws and regulations that effect them. And, of course, inflation is the point in the struggle for a living wage. Not to have felony valuations subject to inflation, to my mind, is just irrational and bespeaks the lack of voice defendants and offenders have in our system.
I think this would be a winning, high-profile issue for you to take up; it would be a "feather in your cap," and it would show that socialists have a keen analytical edge. I hope you see it that way, too.
Very truly yours,
William John Galvin, Esquire
Congratulations upon your election. I'm an attorney who has practiced in criminal defense for quite a few years and, upon that experience, I would like to propose to you some amendments in New York's Penal Law to make things a bit fairer. You're not my particular senator, but I think mine wouldn't be at all receptive to my ideas; I'm in Senate District 43, and my senator is a Republican. I've never written a missive like this before but, like you, I'm a socialist, and I feel that you represent me more than does Senator Daphne Jordan.
Please consider our Penal Law. One way a person can commit the felony of grand larceny is by stealing $1,000 or more or by stealing something worth $1,000 or more. If a person steals something less than that, it's just a misdemeanor. That $1,000 threshold has been there since Jesus was a boy. Indeed, calling $1,000 "a grand" has made it into slang.
For a person to have stolen something worth $1,000 back in, say, 1930, that person would have had to steal something of enormous value, because $1,000 then, due to inflation, had far more purchasing power than $1,000 today. I find it hard to believe that those who were our legislators back in the days when grand larceny was first passed considered how little $1,000 would become; these days we talk of trillions of dollars the way our grandparents used to speak of millions. Today, though, defendants are charged with felony larcenies for valuations that in number are the same, but in true worth are much less. I call this "felony creep."
I ask you to consider proposing a bill to amend the grand larceny statutes substantially to raise the threshold for grand larcenies and, at some periodic point like every year or two, to raise the threshold value of grand larcenies with inflation. Given the effect of second-felony-offender and persistent-felony-offender statutes, I'm sure that there are plenty of people serving time in state penitentiaries for grand larcenies that, if you buy my argument, should be guilty only of misdemeanors. Of course, the bill should ask for retroactive effect, and quite a few people should get their right to vote, as well as other rights and benefits, back.
This principle of "felony creep" applies equally to other offenses with value thresholds. For example, if one damages another's property to the tune of $250 or more, that's a felony criminal mischief. But that $250 limit has been around forever, and it has never been adjusted for inflation. Though I like the term for it's use of "creep," feel free to use it just as if you had made it up yourself.
The law adjusts for inflation all the time. Fines and surcharges rise, verdict awards rise, filing fees rise, rents rise, and businesses are always protecting their interests by making sure that inflation is taken into account in their dealings and in the laws and regulations that effect them. And, of course, inflation is the point in the struggle for a living wage. Not to have felony valuations subject to inflation, to my mind, is just irrational and bespeaks the lack of voice defendants and offenders have in our system.
I think this would be a winning, high-profile issue for you to take up; it would be a "feather in your cap," and it would show that socialists have a keen analytical edge. I hope you see it that way, too.
Very truly yours,
William John Galvin, Esquire
No comments:
Post a Comment