The court in this case was tasked to determine if the defendant should be allowed bail even if he was charged with a drug crime of illegal possession and sale of drugs. As for his sentence, the defendant was given an indeterminate sentence which means he could be sent to prison for year or for the rest of his life. The defendant claimed that he should be eligible for bail under the equal rights protection law.
Under the new provisions involving reduced sentencing of defendants with first class felonies or drug crimes, the defendant should be allowed bail because they are allowed to enjoy the right of equal protection of laws. The indeterminate sentence given by the court was based on the general sanctions provided by the law.
It was emphasized that the law does not allow bail to defendants who are charged with non-violent drug crimes. However, the court has the option of imposing a minimum sentence lower than the minimum period required by law.
The charges made against the defendant were considered and classified under a group of drug crimes with sanctions designed by law to stop the offender from abusing drugs. The sanctions involved included removing the defendant from society by imprisonment. If the defendant’s term has been served, he will continue to receive supervision from the court for the rest of his life. This condition is based on the statutes of the law.
Thus, the law requires a sanction of life imprisonment as a maximum term. The court rationalized that even if the defendant is released some time in the future, the defendant cannot escape the fact that he will remain to be under the surveillance and supervision of the court. The stigma of being a drug offender will always be with him even if he’s no longer in prison. According to records, there have been cases in which released drug offenders went back to dealing or using drugs shortly after their stay in prison. The law further states that the defendant cannot expect to receive an earlier discharge from supervision. This is like being under a lifetime parole.
Under these circumstances, the defendant need to report or update the court regarding his behaviour after his release from prison. The purpose of supervision after release is to monitor the activities of the defendant and ensure that he will not return to drug abuse after treatment or resume his business of drug dealings. The imposed supervision is for the security of society. The law does not want to take the risk of exposing the public to the criminal behaviour of the defendant after his release. Unsupervised release will only encourage drug offenders to resume their former lifestyle and criminal behaviour.
Based on further evaluation of the court, the purpose of sentencing the maximum penalty is to discourage drug offenders. The denial of bail and the imposition of lifetime parole will keep them from going back to their criminal ways if they are released after serving their prison term. The court explained that the law does not want to take the risk of defendants being released back to society with no supervision.
After considering the facts of the case and the review of existing laws, the court has decided to deny the defendant from bail. The defendant’s conviction case remains the same and no changes should be made regarding his sentence.
The ruling of the court was based on past decisions on cases with similar circumstances of drug crimes with defendants also applying for bail. The rule of law has prevailed over those cases and should only support the decision of the court to deny the defendant’s desire for bail.
If you know someone who needs an expert New York Criminal Lawyer, consult Stephen Bilkis & Associates for immediate action. The legal services of a New York Drug Crime Attorney can help you prepare for any trial.
A New York Drug Crime Attorney is always ready to help your case. If you are in need of a New York Criminal Lawyer, Stephen Bilkis & Associates have offices located in the metropolitan area to accommodate you and your legal needs.