“The comparatively lengthy sentences in this case are made necessary by mandatory minimums but also by the finding that the available alternatives to incarceration or diversion programs are either insufficient or unavailable for violent defendants, like the present ones who have been trapped in a gang culture, and condemned to a life of poverty and probable crime. Thus even youthful offenders, charged with violent offenses, are typically not given the opportunity to avoid incarceration or participate in programming that would enhance their skills and reduce recidivism. More court sentencing alternatives and community programming, in addition to [ ] targeted policing, are necessary to discourage gang violence, as well as to assist defendants attempting to escape their environs after a conviction or sentence. Lengthy mandatory minimums, and the penological theory of incapacitation continue to be justified by a lack of sentencing alternatives for society’s “unredeemables. Incapacitation cannot be the sole purpose of a sentence. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). [R]emoving individuals from society does not decrease crime.” Judge Jack Weinstein, Senior Federal District Court in Brooklyn, Statement of Reasons ( a court order) U.S. v. Rivera, Folks, and Cruz, 16-CR-323-002, 004 and 005, http://blog.federaldefendersny.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/12.7.17-Statement-of-Reasons.pdf
Aggressively Defending My Clients Since 1990