Since state laws and penalties can vary a significantly, do you think justice is really being served?

Hey Morgan R, I'm still new @ this, & have tried to get in touch. I'll keep trying.

Since I live in Canada, I know in the U.S. that the laws vary State to State.

That question is a yes & no for me. If one State has a higher crime rate in Drugs, it would make more sense for their Laws to be tougher for the users/buyers compared to a State that has a higher crime rate in Prostituition. Also it wouldn't seem fair if one State only gave X amount of time/fine, & another State gave twice as much for the same instance.

But on the other hand it sure would make things a heck of alot easier if ALL Laws were the same everywhere because at least you'd know what the consequence was. But I don't think that States should be able to impose any penalty. If it has to be done, it shouldn't so dramatic as $50 in one State, & 5 years in another for the same crime. I believe that there is a Constitutional issue here.

That's not Justice, that's insanity!

Since I'm assuming you are taking more of a philosophical viewpoint than an actual and not limiting this topic to just drug possession, I will answer in generalities.

I would like to be able to tell you that the "competitive market" of electing law makers to make appropriate laws and sentencing guidelines would address this possible discrepancy of the Constitution, but it's just not happening or going to happen (too many variables to address when choosing lawmakers). Secondly, I would like to be able to tell you that the individual communities' have full right to impose their own standards, but I've never really felt that was a just stance (prejudicing against the minority is a distinct possibility). Thirdly, I doubt this will ever seriously be addressed since the sentencing of convicted criminals is generally not of great consequence during elections with the notable exception of the "tough on crime" candidates.

While I know this would require an amendment, I think the only fair way to address this would be for federally mandated sentencing guidelines on any crimes that are against federal law, regardless of the actual jurisdiction of the crime. As an example, murder is illegal in all 50 states and is a federal crime under the right conditions, therefore the sentencing guidelines should be the same for all, though I might allow for a judge to allow a lenient sentence (e.g., if drug dealing is not a large problem in a certain community, then the judge can reduce a sentence at his discretion). Of course, I'm not advocating this as a practical course of action, but more of an ideal.

Determinate Sentencing. Prior to 1977, convicted felons received indeterminate sentences in which the term of imprisonment included a minimum with no prescribed maximum. For example, an individual might receive a “five-years-to-life” sentence. After serving five years in prison, the individual would remain incarcerated until the state parole board determined that the individual was ready to return to the community and was a low risk to commit crimes in the future.

In 1976, the Legislature and the Governor enacted a new sentencing structure for felonies, called determinate sentencing, which took effect the following year. Under this structure, most felony punishments have a defined release date based on the “triad” sentencing structure. The triad sentencing structure provides the court with three sentencing options for each crime. For example, a first-degree burglary offense is punishable by a term in prison of two, four, or six years. The middle term is the presumptive term to be given to an offender found guilty of the crime. The upper and lower terms provided in statute can be given if circumstances concerning the crime or offender warrant more or less time in state prison. We would note that, in January 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court (Cunningham v. California) restricted a judges ability to assign the upper term. In some cases, offenders are still punished by indeterminate sentences today. Specifically, indeterminate sentences are provided for some of the most serious crimes, such as first-degree murder, as well as for some repeat offenders. In fact, about 19 percent of state prison inmates are currently serving indeterminate life sentences.

There is definitely no constitutional issue. When the constitution was ratified, states were already in existence. The constitution was predicated on the concept of Federalism. The founding fathers went out of their way to ensure the states would retain mcuh power over how they would govern themselves.

It may be a misnomer, but Federalism is the concept that the states would largely be independent of one another, yet be linked together through one central government. A federation .

I feel the laws should be preety straight forward across the states because then people would know the laws better and I feel possibly cut back on crime

Of course it is. Even most neo cons know in reality it is torture (if they don't think it causes pain or suffering I would love to see them volunteer for water boarding) but they think it is JUSTIFIED. It's a completely different argument.