Peter Schaffer on Drug Laws
Peter J. Schaffer, Attorney at Law devotes his practice to New York State criminal defense and the defense of all federal criminal matters throughout the United States. From his office in Bronx, New York, Mr. Schaffer is readily accessible to all New York City, Nassau and Westchester County Criminal and State Supreme Courts, as well as the U.S. District Courts for the District of Connecticut and the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
With a wealth of experience handling cases ranging from simple traffic violations to complex federal death penalty eligible felonies, Mr. Schaffer uses the knowledge and skills he has developed over the past twenty-one years of trial work to help his clients achieve the best result in every case he defends.
Mr. Schaffer appears regularly on The Nancy Grace Show on CNN HeadlineNews, and on IN SESSION on truTV (formerly, courtTV), and has been heard on Sirius Satellite Radio and Bloomberg Radio as a guest commentator on nationally prominent criminal trials.
Peter Schaffer: Well, it was incredibly unjust because they had a hundred to one ratio. For example, if you had one gram of cocaine powder, if you had one-hundredth the amount of crack cocaine that those would be considered equal. And I think that crack cocaine typically has been associated with communities that are lower income, poor people; whereas, you know, at, you know, parties in Aspen, people aren’t smoking crack. So it did have a horrific effect on
population. I do federal criminal work and I’ve seen a number of young people face horrific sentencing because of their involvement with crack cocaine, maybe on a very superficial level, but because of the way the way the sentencing guidelines were structured, there was no such thing as a small case.
I mean they would have to have a hundred times as much as the equivalent amount of crack. And from what I’ve learned that to convert powder cocaine to crack, it’s a one-to-one basis. So if you were in the federal system, it’s insidious enough that if there was proof that you intended to convert say 50 grams of powder into 50 grams of crack, it would be treated at the 100 to 1 ratio.
Question: So you feel your clients arrive in court because they were destined to be there?
Peter Schaffer: Well, I don’t know if anybody’s destined to be before the criminal justice system, but if you grow up in an area of low income where many people are not working, where there’s not much employment, where there is not a lot of guidance, inevitably people- there are a lot of opportunities to become involved in criminal activity. Also in the lower income communities, people are much more likely to resolve disputes simply by dialing 911. And police are more predisposed to just simply
arresting people rather than trying to resolve an issue or see if an issue really requires an arrest. So you see a tremendous amount of people that in other communities there wouldn’t have been the opportunity to get in crime. Things that they do would not have been treated as a crime but for the fact that that’s the way that the police handle things. And people are very- it’s very easy to dial 911 to resolve a problem.
Question: What will keep people from getting into that position?
Peter Schaffer: Well, again, I think it’s the funding programs to help addiction, education programs to stop people from becoming involved in, you know, substance abuse situations, job training. People that are working are far less likely to become involved in crime. They don’t have to take things to support themselves. So I think a lot of money would be better spent before people get into the criminal justice system than now. Now we spend the most amount of money-- and when I say we, I’m talking about government-- in building prisons to simply warehouse people and that’s why this country has more people in jail per capital than any country in the world and that’s pretty horrific.
Question: How likely is it that men and women who have spent 10 or 20 years in prison can come out productive?
Peter Schaffer: Well, I still am loathe to say that someone that’s committed a crime even if they’ve gone to prison that they’re gonna be like anyone else because they’re still individuals so I think it really depends. There’s no rehabilitation. As far as rehabilitation education, very little is spent on that. Most of the money for corrections is spent on protection and really making sure people don’t escape, don’t engage in violence with other inmates, but there’s not a lot done to see that when people get out that they won’t repeat those behaviors. But I still think it depends on the individual. If they’re coming out and they have a supportive family, they probably have a shot. If they’re coming out to nothing and they have an extensive criminal history beforehand and they’re going back to the neighborhood where they’ve gotten arrested and prosecuted over and over again, I think there’s little hope that they’re gonna turn their entire life around.
: What should be done to help these people?
Peter Schaffer: Well, I think if towards the end of people’s sentence, I know in the federal system depending on what crime you were convicted of, they release people to halfway houses and conditionally release people so they get some sort of job skills or training. There has to be something other than sitting in a cell for 20 years and then on the day that you’re scheduled to be released, they simply open the door for you and give you your clothes that you came in with. One would
hope that towards the end of sentencing, some effort is made to match that individual up with some sort of preparation for the world outside ‘cause the world- not only is it different from their experience at being incarcerated, but the world is different from when they went in.
The humanity and inhumanity behind drug laws.
Swiss researchers identify new dangers of modern cocaine.
- Cocaine cut with anti-worming adulterant levamisole may cause brain damage.
- Levamisole can thin out the prefrontal cortex and affect cognitive skills.
- Government health programs should encourage testing of cocaine for purity.
Pfizer's partnerships strengthen their ability to deliver vaccines in developing countries.
- Pfizer is helping to drive the UN's sustainable development goals through partnerships.
Civil discourse has fallen to an all time low.
The question that the American populace needs to ask itself now is: how do we fix it?
Discursive fundamentals need to be taught to preserve free expression
In their findings the authors state:
upholding First Amendment ideals.
Talking politics at Thanksgiving dinner
- Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
- Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
- Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
- Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic, conspiratorial
- Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
- Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
- Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising,
It's interesting to note the authors found that:
"Tribe membership shows strong reliability in predicting views across different political topics."
Here are some statistics on differing viewpoints according to political party:
- 51% of staunch liberals say it's "morally acceptable" to punch Nazis.
- 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
- 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
- 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
- 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.
Here are some guidelines for civic discourse that might come in handy:
- Practice inclusion and listen to who you're speaking to.
Civic discourse in the divisive age
dangerously tribal, fueled by a culture of outrage and taking offense. For the combatants,
the other side can no longer be tolerated, and no price is too high to defeat them.
These tensions are poisoning personal relationships, consuming our politics and
putting our democracy in peril.
Once a country has become tribalized, debates about contested issues from
immigration and trade to economic management, climate change and national security,
become shaped by larger tribal identities. Policy debate gives way to tribal conflicts.
Polarization and tribalism are self-reinforcing and will likely continue to accelerate.
The work of rebuilding our fragmented society needs to start now. It extends from
re-connecting people across the lines of division in local communities all the way to
building a renewed sense of national identity: a bigger story of us."
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.