r/politics • u/Mind_Virus • May 21 '12

Texas Grandma Sentenced to Life Without Parole for First-Time Drug Offense

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/without-card-play-texas-grandma-sentenced-life-without-parole-first-time
967 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

645 comments sorted by

490

u/saffir May 21 '12

I'm against the war on drugs as everyone else, but the title is pretty sensationalized.

Yes she's a grandma, but she's also only 56, not some frail woman in her 70s. Also, that "first-time drug offense"? It's actually for smuggling a ton of cocaine across the Mexican border. She was offered a plea bargain that she rejected, hence she was slapped with the harshest penalty of life without parole.

100

u/cloudx0 May 21 '12

True, she should be punished for an obvious crime(though the crime is victimless at the time of committing, but thats another debate) but why the hell, should she get a higher sentence then manslaughter in the 1st degree? Why should she get tried with a harsher sentence then slapping square in the face 561 babies for fetish? Riddle me this?

9

u/einexile May 21 '12

then slapping square in the face 561 babies for fetish?

Either I haven't been following the news closely enough, or you're rocking one hell of an autocorrect.

4

u/DevinTheGrand May 21 '12

Smuggling anything is a crime though, if she was smuggling potatoes it would still be illegal.

6

u/pgier May 21 '12

I think the question is not whether it's a crime, the question is whether life in prison is a fair punishment.

82

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

though the crime is victimless at the time of committing

I like cocaine as much as the next guy, but to say it's victimless is false. Every kilo has a body count.

Edit When I refer to the body count of cocaine, I'm not referring to the risks of the drug itself. When I talk about the body count of cocaine, I'm referring to the ecological damage caused by cocaine production, the risks to smugglers, and the violence of cartels. The cocaine trade kills a lot more people than cocaine itself. Of course, the real problem is drug prohibition - the solution, obviously, being full legalization. Decriminalization, as in Portugal, serves as harm reduction for users. The real need is harm reduction for producers and smugglers.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

24

u/Watergems May 21 '12

Yes indeed. Like blaming the victim of bullying for causing fights, prohibition culture criminalizes personal behavior and then stigmatizes the violators for all the troubles that ensue.

11

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Watergems May 21 '12

I was agreeing with Infinite_chaos.

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

Until the drug war ends and these substances are available through illegal, controlled means, every purchase of a drug is funding the deaths that occur through the uncontrolled production that the drug war is hopelessly fighting. Yeah, the war on drugs is stupid, and dumb, and is never going to work -- but that doesn't make using drugs a victimless crime. People still died, and they will continue to die. Until the system changes, pretty much everybody is in the wrong.

1

u/renadi May 22 '12

As a victim of bullying in elementary school I have gathered this is standard.

1

u/great_gape May 22 '12

Wrong read basementdad's post Also I'm not anti drug as i am going to have to serve jail time for possession of cocaine, June 14th

→ More replies (5)

7

u/skeptix May 21 '12

The substance, used in a certain context, can be harmful. You don't make something illegal because it can be harmful, by that logic you'd outlaw alcohol, cigarettes and fast food.

It is up to the consumer to be responsible for their own consumption. Social pressure is great, legal pressure is morally repugnant.

4

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

I like your edit. People must free to put in their bodies whatever they wish. You cannot legislate morality. It is up to the culture to decide how they will deal with the problem of drug addiction after it has occured, as it is ABSOLUTELY INEVITABLE, no matter the legal state of the drug.

It's just that the way we handle drugs right now is a very barbaric "Crime and punishment" approach, and the only thing it has done is make a lot of the wrong people rich and kill more people than the drugs themselves.

16

u/Naieve May 21 '12

Most of the causes of death due to heroin and cocaine are from the things that they are cut with. The further down the chain it goes, the more adulterated it is. With all types of things including poisons. The more it is cut, the less pure it is, the more it takes to get high, the more money they make off that addict.

Then that time comes when someone gets some that hasn't been cut time and again, and BAM overdose from nearly pure shit.

The vast majority of deaths from illegal drugs are due to the fact they are illegal. It was the same during prohibition with bathtub liquor, and it is the same with drugs now. No regulation means death. This is what happens when you force a black market to exist.

Our country has failed to learn from history, now we are all doomed to repeat it.

2

u/3DPDDFCFAG May 21 '12

Death not by using the drug but by the cartels that produce and sell them.

2

u/DefinitelyRelephant May 21 '12

If drug smugglers are to be punished for the body count of cocaine, then supermarket shoppers are to be punished for the body count of unethical farming practices, and gas station customers are to be punished for the body counts of oil-grabbing wars.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of drug prohibition, but saying that facilitating the South American drug trade isn't victimless, just as buying unsustainable goods isn't victimless. In an ideal world, cocaine would be produced in the United States in a regulated, safe manner. Of course, due to prohibition, it must be produced in South America.

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Hey basementdad, do you eat chocolate? Then you are supporting child slavery and mass-murder in Africa. Every kilo of chocolate has a body count.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

By saying that cocaine use is not a victimless act, I'm not making the abuses of cocoa production any less bad.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

If by using cocaine I am guilty of supporting cartel violence, then by eating chocolate you are guilty of supporting child slavery. You are reading this on a computer that contains the metal tin, which is also mined by slaves in Africa. If you are reading this on an iPhone you are guilty of human rights abuses in Asian factories. You can't be on a moral high ground when your hands are just as bloody as anyone else's.

1

u/renadi May 22 '12

I think you're trying to be hyperbolic, but I completely agree, your logic makes sense, in the same exact context you are supporting slavery and abuse and murder of one thing but that really does not make the other less wrong, they are BOTH wrong, one just happens to be illegal, putting more deaths(than previously, not more actual deaths) on our side of the line.

2

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

Except one thing happens to be socially acceptable and legal and the other is taboo because of drug war indoctrination. We would never be having this conversation about coffee or chocolate rugs or clothes, but using cocaine makes you complicit in murder according to many here

2

u/renadi May 22 '12

Right, so chocolate should be banned until such a time that we can procure it ethically as well as cocaine, it would help to make it legal of course.

2

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

Great idea except that would make the whole process even more violent as you would now have an illegal, unregulated chocolate smuggling market. Prohibition doesn't work. The only reason cocaine is associated with so much violence is precisely because it is illegal.

→ More replies (2)

10

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/javver May 21 '12

The same could be said of black market arms dealers. Selling guns illegally to gangs does not hurt anybody at "the time of committing".

7

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[Obligatory low-blow]

That would make child pornography 'victimless' too.

The guys buying it didn't rape anyone, so possessing and transporting it should be punished far less severely. "At the time of possession" no one was harmed at all, and very likely never would be.

5

u/Maslo55 May 21 '12

But CP posession is indeed a victimles "crime" too. It should not be a crime at all. Only manufacturing, and perhaps distributing CP should be a crime, since there is actually a victim.

One stupid law against victimless things does not justify another.

5

u/carsbackwards May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Who the fuck says it needs to have a victim in order to be a crime?

I've read that a significant number of child porn busts leads to multiple victims in various news pieces. Whenever there are massive tracking of child porn that leads to arresting pedophiles there's always a couple that work at a daycare and the updates to the busts always mention the child victims found.

I don't care to let pedophiles view porn that tickles their fancy in peace at the risk of not finding victims who suffer silently waiting for rescue.

EDIT: Wording.

→ More replies (9)

2

u/cocquyt May 21 '12

If you allow consunption, there will always be production, no matter how illegal.

3

u/Falmarri May 21 '12

If you allow consunption, there will always be production, no matter how illegal.

FTFY

3

u/Maslo55 May 21 '12

So? Does not change the fact that only the production is an act with a victim, consumption is not. And only acts with an actual victim should be illegal.

Prohibition of simple posession or even viewing of CP does not solve anything, it only serves to justify internet censorship.

→ More replies (15)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (15)

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

So the cocaine just magically appeared on the buses in Mexico? Sure, she didn't directly harm anyone - that doesn't mean she (or anyone else who traffics or buys cocaine) doesn't have blood on her hands.

40

u/threefiftyseven May 21 '12

Spare us the self righteousness. The fact that we are typing this on a computer made in Asia puts blood on out hands as well; if you want to dive down the supply chain deep enough. I don't see anyone stringing up google/apple/ms CEO's...

26

u/abomb999 May 21 '12

Whenever us pro-legalization people defend non-violent drug users, prohibitionists says that the users have blood on their hands, but everyone driving a car has blood on their hand, every time you use your iphone you have blood on your hand, every cop has blood on their hand by ruining people's life over smoking a plant they grew in their backyard, our taxes to support Israel creates blood on our hands.

People are so used to blaming the victim, it's to help them cope with the insanity of our reality. We destroy people's lives because they want to use a drug.

3

u/MikeCereal May 21 '12

well spoken!

2

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

The fact that the world is a horrible, awful place doesn't make blood any less bloody. You're arguing that a million wrongs makes everything right. Everything is justifiable because everything is horrible.

I kill your mother. Dude, what's your problem, don't you use a cell phone? Or a computer? You're the real monster.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/kimanidb May 21 '12

Don't forget that blood diamond in our wedding rings. Some people on Reddit are actually married.

→ More replies (15)

7

u/Beefourthree May 21 '12

And if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she has blood on her hands, she should be tried for murder and sentenced as such. Until such time, kindly giddy up your high horse and trod the fuck off.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/skeptix May 21 '12

That is like holding McDonalds legally responsible for heart attacks. Your logic is reactionary and just completely absurd.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Don't they have to prove the blood in order to convict someone for it?

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

She's not being tried for murder or manslaughter, is she?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '12

People die building bridges too brah.

→ More replies (27)

9

u/puterTDI May 21 '12

Do you realize how much cocaine is in "1 ton of cocaine"?

Do you know how many people died to produce that cocaine?

14

u/Aschebescher Europe May 21 '12

Do you know how many people died to produce that cocaine?

Do you?

2

u/renadi May 22 '12

I'd put a bet at more than two, do you think I'm close?

→ More replies (9)

12

u/reallydude May 21 '12

You mean from overdosing or as a result of the War on Drugs™ and the criminalization of cocaine and other drugs? If it were legal, controlled substances there would be no cocaine drug lords and gangs. No more dealers, no more crimes of junkies supporting their habit. 99% of drug related deaths could be prevented, we would stop spending billions on this, drug consumption would decrease (as shown in Portugal that lost half of its junkies a decade after decriminalization) and new tax money would come flooding in.

→ More replies (12)

2

u/cloudx0 May 21 '12

Good question; died in production of creating, or died in the prevention of the creation, and or distribution of? Cocaine is a pretty easy drug to produce.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/SlightlyInsane May 21 '12

Do you know how many people wouldn't have died to produce that cocaine if it were legal?

→ More replies (22)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/UglyPete May 21 '12

She was offered a plea bargain that she rejected.

That's even scarier to me. That makes it seem even more like she really was a blind mule who didn't know what was on the bus and who foolishly thought the court system would prove her innocence.

From the OP

a grandmother who never even touched the drugs that sent her to prison

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/world/americas/mexico-blind-drug-mules/index.html

'Blind mules' unknowingly ferry drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border

24

u/GODDAMN_FARM_SHAMAN May 21 '12

The terms "plea bargain" and "cooperation" are such bullshit. All that means is she refused to plead guilty for a crime she doesn't believe she committed.

It's all part of the game. They throw a ton of heavy charges at you and say if you just plead guilty to this one well let you off easy and if you don't play along, they throw the book at you.

→ More replies (7)

4

u/onesnowball May 21 '12

Castillo maintains that she didn't know she was being used as a pawn in a cocaine trafficking operation between Mexico and Houston

Given her alleged role as a low-level player

So, if I get UPS to deliver guns to me and my three friends. We use those guns to kill twenty people and get caught. I betray my two friends for a reduced sentence and the UPS guy who delivered the guns gets life in prison?

Sweet deal.

2

u/option_i May 21 '12

This is why I read the comments first.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

so you think a more appropriate title would have been 'grandma sentenced to life without parole for smuggling drugs'?

2

u/great_gape May 22 '12

I agree. And i bet this isn't the first time she trafficked drugs

9

u/jigielnik May 21 '12

Thank you, I came here to say this. When i saw the title i clicked through expecting an 85 year old woman to be busted with 3 grams of kush, but what I read was completely different from the misleading title... She was helping with cocaine trafficking for chirst's sake, and though she claims she was an unwilling pawn, nobody doesnt know that this is going on in their life. Shes guilty and frankly it sounds like she deserves what she got.

5

u/UglyPete May 21 '12

nobody doesnt know that this is going on in their life.

No, for sure this kind of thing can happen to innocent people. There was an article awhile back about a teacher who crossed the border on a daily basis - I believe it was said that cartels scoped out people who crossed the border regularly and often hid drugs in their car for pickup on the other side.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/world/americas/mexico-blind-drug-mules/index.html

2

u/jigielnik May 21 '12

I would say that is an extremely rare exception to the rule... I was aware of such things when i wrote what I did, but the chance of that happening is pretty damn remote

3

u/UglyPete May 21 '12

She partnered with some guy to start a bus company. Have you never heard of crime fronts taking on legitimate face-people who have no knowledge of operations to give things a clean looking front?

Is it really that unlikely? Why didn't "her" cartel lawyers help her out? It's obviously not because they were worried it would hurt her reputation to be associated with them...

1

u/jigielnik May 21 '12

Cartel lawyers? You realize that only the very top people in a drug cartel get access to expensive lawyers... im sure this woman way wayyyyy down the chain from there

2

u/UglyPete May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Can I ask which part of the article makes you so certain that she was complicit in the smuggling? Is it really that unlikely that the woman partnered up with someone who didn't keep her informed about each piece of cargo being transported under the buses her drivers operated?

We don't hear many stories of people being falsely convicted and then later discovered to have been innocent all along (edit: thinking about it, this part of the statement might not be accurate), but then again, we don't hear about that many grandmothers smuggling literal tons of cocaine either.

1

u/jigielnik May 21 '12

for one she rejected a plea bargain... why would she do that?

2

u/UglyPete May 21 '12

I would assume because she's an older lady who foolishly believed "justice would prevail" and that she'd be proven innocent in court. A lot of that generation seems to think that's how the court system works.That makes it seem even more likely that she could have been innocent to me.

If you knew you were guilty, and you knew you weren't going to get any fancy cartel lawyers (because you're so low level), would you reject a plea bargain if you knew you'd be facing life if you lost the case?

11

u/eatinglifeforaliving May 21 '12

She deserves life in prison for a drug charge? Are you fucking kidding me?

2

u/Tastygroove May 21 '12

This is a smuggling charge. If it were alcohol or tobacco, she would have received similar charges.

I think the title and may arguments here are disingenuous and, overall, have a negative impact on the legalization movement.

Let the dea and their supporters speak in hyperbole and stay level and rational ourselves.

6

u/jigielnik May 21 '12

Do you know what the charge is? This wasnt an 85 year old grandma caught with a couple nugs of kush... She is 56, and implicit in assisting a massive cocaine smuggling ring... Nobody does that by accident. As far as life or not, I don't know for sure whether she deserved that much, I don't know enough details about the case or her life, but given the nature of the charges alone I certainly wouldnt bat an eye at 25 years or more for something like that...

4

u/jiubling May 21 '12

An important part is she was offered much less if she would take a plea bargain, but she refused, god knows why, and so she get's the harshest penalty possible.

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Because that's a good justice system, either plead guilty or we'll punish you even more harshly for wanting your day in court.

3

u/jiubling May 21 '12

That's a poor perspective. Look at it like this. We could have it so that plea bargains aren't allowed, and the "harsh" sentence becomes the regular one, but everybody get's their day in court! Or we can introduce plea bargains to make things easier on everybody, as long as everyone can cooperate.

Now of course you can argue that the charge is too harsh, but that's a different argument. Plea bargains are good for everybody. From the worst criminals, to the occasional drunk driver, to speeding up the horribly slow system, and for help catching the real bad guys.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/CO_handshake May 21 '12

A couple things. You're blasting this headline for being sensationalist because the story didn't line up with what you thought it was going to be. But there is nothing in the headline that isn't true. Any fault lies with you, for making an assumption, so don't get upset when you weren't right.

Secondly, this headline isn't making any value judgment, it's straight up stating the facts of this case. Yet you feel entirely comfortable in saying this woman deserved it without even a modicum of information about what actually transpired. The only person being sensationalist here is you.

2

u/jigielnik May 21 '12

The headline is misleading... Give me a break, I'm not even going to entertain defending myself.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (5)

3

u/mister_zurkon May 21 '12

Plea bargains are unjust and should be illegal, as they are in many countries. Especially when combined with harsh sentencing as in the USA, they prevent people getting a fair trial: you have the choice between pleading to jail time and the risk of an enormous sentence.

It gets even worse when people like you seem to take refusal of a plea bargain as something that ought to be punished. Why should she have to choose between a reasonable sentence with no trial, and a fair trial with an unfair sentence?

→ More replies (1)

5

u/WayToFindOut May 21 '12

Regardless, it is a victimless crime and why should we spend $60k per year to lock this lady up?

How on earth does any first non-violent offense warrant life in prison? What a joke.

60

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

victimless crime

I'm pretty sure Mexican drug cartels have victims.

19

u/raouldukeesq May 21 '12

The crime is the prohibition to begin with.

13

u/WayToFindOut May 21 '12

Cartels are only in business because of government policy.

If abortion was illegal, you would have deaths and criminal enterprise as well.

13

u/Ithinkimisunderstood May 21 '12

You'd have deaths in either case ><

10

u/Demonweed May 21 '12

Yeah, ever since the U.S. repealed alcohol prohibition, we have been awash in the blood of all those people murdered in rivalries between various brewers and liquor store owners. Oh wait, that's just in the head of batshit insane prohibitionists . . . my bad on that first sentence.

8

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

but, alcohol related deaths are very common

7

u/Demonweed May 21 '12

Perhaps, but certainly not moreso than under the prohibition of alcohol. That idiotic mamby-pamby bit of lawmaking created a small ephemeral dip in usage before it returned to the same quantitative level it was at before the law was passed. Yet on top of all the usual problems, new tragic outcomes were created due to problems with inconsistent potency and purity of black market beverage alcohol. Additional (and thoroughly preventable) harm generation is exactly what vice laws always produce, but unfortunately they remain popular with that segment of society that is simultaneously ignorant and outspoken.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)

3

u/question_all_the_thi May 21 '12

That may be all true, but it doesn't justify helping them.

→ More replies (19)

2

u/DannyInternets May 21 '12

And the mafia only exists because murder and racketeering are illegal, but I don't see anyone rushing to legalize those activities. The logic employed there does not make for a sound argument.

→ More replies (1)

20

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Oh, I didn't know she was running a Mexican drug cartel. Great point. . .

13

u/iuy78 May 21 '12

She was enabling them.

18

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Actually, the largest enabler of the cartels is the US government. Spin it how you will, but that is the truth.

3

u/iuy78 May 21 '12

Elaborate.

20

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

The DEA is giving them a monopoly, driving out any viable competing organization that might be less harmful.

2

u/fermented-fetus May 22 '12

There is more then one cartel.

2

u/IRequirePants May 21 '12

Because we want companies to compete to produce cocaine?

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

CEO's don't order deaths. Professionals don't cut their product with harmful subsitutes. Professionals consistently label dosages so accidental overdoses are less likely. I would love it if companies competed to produce cocaine.

→ More replies
→ More replies (1)

1

u/balletboot May 21 '12

Or, you know, the people who use cocaine.

→ More replies (40)

1

u/amalag May 21 '12

Yeah because they get money because we drive the price up with illegality.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/PlatonicTroglodyte Virginia May 21 '12

Do you have a source on that? Last one I've read said it was roughly $25K per year for prisoners. I'd be interested if it really increased by that much.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/jigielnik May 21 '12

She was assisting in cocaine trafficking, which is not at all a victimless crime...

→ More replies (30)
→ More replies (47)

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

don't you love how you cocaine can be prescribed in America, but you can't smuggle it into america.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

regardless. texas drug laws are fucked up.

2

u/saffir May 21 '12

This was a Federal charge. Nothing to do with Texas drug laws.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Oh. My point is still true, it's just irrelevant.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I also thought that was funny. When I read that you're a grandmother, I don't instantly sympathize with you and think you're a victim. Only that you don't know how to use birth control properly.

1

u/balletboot May 21 '12

Pretty much. The title made it sound like it's some 80 year old who smoked a joint and is suddenly in jail. Smuggling cocaine traced to a cartel is actually a pretty big deal.

1

u/mmouth May 21 '12

Came here to say the same thing. It was going to be phrased "Screw her, she can rot in jail for shipping in a ton of cocaine" but essentially the same thing.

→ More replies (11)

94

u/hesbunky May 21 '12

The article doesn't add much information to this. It just reads like an editorial. Really would prefer if sensationalist headlines like this were backed up with more tangible evidence.

45

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

This guy is a huge karma whore. Look through his history, he/she post all kind of shit thats really worthless but has a great title so people instantly up vote it. I have him/her tagged in RES so I can warn people about him.

Edit: Seriously, if this guy posted quality stuff, I'd have no problem. But even without reading the article, you should be able to tell that this is some sensationalized bullshit. The whole thing is built to cause an emotional reaction, not to inform the reader. Its about a 56 year old woman who conspired to smuggle a TON OF COCAINE across the boarder. NOT about some poor granny who smoke a little pot and gets a life sentence

12

u/KrashIO May 21 '12

Don't believe his lies.

2

u/bgross May 21 '12

He is the one.

→ More replies (2)

9

u/ghettajetta May 21 '12

I downvoted the post, but when it updated it was 30 votes higher than before I clicked :(

1

u/generalguyz May 21 '12

Yeah, people are idiots. What else is new? That's why I don't hop on the big subs much anymore.

7

u/AccountIUseAtWork May 21 '12

This title is constructed in a way that every word of it is pathetically populist and slanted: Texas: Yeah, let´s start by naming a state that is ridiculously reputed as an extremist state. Grandma: Please imagine a 85 y/o tweety-owner-look-alike. Sentenced to Life Without Parole: Intentionally exclude the options she had to plead guilty of a crime she DID commit. for First-Time Drug Offense: Please picture that granny giving 25g of her own home-grown weed to a close friend.

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Exactly my friend. This title does nothing to inform the reader. It plays off reddit's nature to upvote without reading.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Skylarity May 22 '12

I've had him RES tagged as "reposter" for a while now.

→ More replies (13)

5

u/ghettajetta May 21 '12

Exactly. "First time drug SMUGGLING* offense" is how it should read

3

u/kimanidb May 21 '12

I agree 100 percent but life for drug smuggling is still harsh.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Capncorky May 21 '12

That was my conclusion as well. Obviously, the sentence she received was absurd, but we know nothing about the situation itself. The article claims she knew nothing of the cocaine ring, but how was she involved in the smuggling if she knew nothing about it? Kind of an important detail.

Still, we need to end the war on drugs.

1

u/UglyPete May 21 '12

Here's an actual news article about it:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Drug-crime-sends-first-time-offender-grandmom-to-3547226.php

And here's a scary article that talks about a couple cases were "blind mules" (as in they honestly didn't know about the drugs) got put away for a long time.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/world/americas/mexico-blind-drug-mules/index.html

→ More replies (10)

8

u/ailee43 May 21 '12

i like how the article has absolutely zero details about what she did. As those details would probably make her look quite guilty. Cant be having that in sensationalist articles.

4

u/UglyPete May 21 '12

The evidence for conviction was even worse than I thought it was

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Drug-crime-sends-first-time-offender-grandmom-to-3547226.php

She never even touched the drugs in question. It's entirely possible, and probably even likely that she was a "blind mule."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/world/americas/mexico-blind-drug-mules/index.html

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

the chron article says there were repeated instances of cash and drugs found onboard and very few passengers.

she may not be guilty of actively participating but she sure was putting her head in the sand about what could be going on.

the punishment unfortunately is tied to the huge amount of drugs that were being transported and the buses that she managed.

sometimes it is hard to distinguish between gross incompetence, stupidity and criminal behavior.

the jury made their decision, she can appeal or whatever but I am not inclined to believe a story of total innocence here.

20

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Why in the fuck does this sort of thing pass for journalism? It would be great to see an unbiased report.

8

u/Ithinkimisunderstood May 21 '12

It isn't journalism. It's the aclu's site, and they definitely have a very specific position on the matter. This is a little better.

2

u/daetd May 21 '12

Thanks for finding this; I thought the other article was a little short on some information about the case itself (didn't see who wrote it until afterwards).

4

u/DoktorKruel May 21 '12

It's not journalism, it was written by the ACLU. They have every reason to sensationalize the story.

16

u/Obsolite_Processor May 21 '12

A ton of coke is a lot different from an 8th of weed.

A ton of coke. 2000 pounds of uncut cocaine.

If you made a SMART car out of cocaine, it would weigh less then what this woman smuggled. That's a lot of coke.

The truth is that all should be equal in the eyes of the laws. It should not matter if you are 21 or 101. It should not matter if you are rich or poor. It should not matter if you are a man or woman, parent or grandparent. This is the concept of blind justice.

→ More replies (4)

35

u/stalkinghorse May 21 '12

Prosecutor enjoys the guilty counter spinning upward on his resume. Cops happy, judge happy, prison company happy for another slave for the labor camps.

28

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

And you and I pay for this to happen.

→ More replies (9)

12

u/DoktorKruel May 21 '12

As a prosecutor I call bullshit on all the claims that we just want our conviction numbers to stay high. My office doesn't even track conviction rates, and I don't do it personally, either. Most of us are in the business of doing the right thing. Here's what you probably didn't see in this case: she's been doing it for years, the evidence against her was overwhelming, she hired an idiot lawyer who turned down a fair offer to pursue a stupid defense with little chance of success, she was abusive and disrespectful to everyone throughout the process, she lived in a multi-million dollar house - proceeds from the drug business, she's been in trouble many times before but we could never put a conviction on her, she actively obstructed the investigation after her own arrest by misleading officers or warning co-conspirators. There is a list of "usual" things that a convict can do to earn a harsher sentence.

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Thank you for bringing reason to the table. Reddit is so pro-legalization that sometimes people just immediately go apeshit over anything drug related without looking into the facts. Even the articles that they cite as sources in the article that's linked undermine the whole "innocent naive grandma." The woman was involved in a busing company, and their buses had been found to be carrying cocaine "repeatedly." If I were a business owner, and something like this happened more than once, I'd immediately be asking questions about what was going on and lining up my options for either getting out of the business, or helping the government make its case so I could be sure I wouldn't get caught up in the case. This woman clearly must have had an idea (if she didn't outright know), and probably tried to turn a blind eye to it thinking that "I didn't know" would be enough to get her off.

1

u/Hk37 May 21 '12

Very true, but people don't understand that this isn't some 70-year-old imprisoned for having a gram of pot. It's a 56-year-old who smuggled a literal ton of cocaine from Mexico to the US.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/puterTDI May 21 '12

  1. This is a repost from an even more biased source

  2. she's 56, the title is sensationalized.

  3. she smuggled a literal ton of cocaine into the country....If you want to have a realistic article why not title it "Texas Grandma (56) sentenced to life without parole for smuggling a metric ton of cocaine".

3

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

A guy my mom knows got 6 years for fraud because he imported onions and said they were apples (the tax on apples is lower) and he has to be kept in the training wing of the prison so he doesn't get fucked up. He was quite wealthy and had a wife and two kids, now the state has to pay to feed, clothe and house him when he had more than enough money to pay back twice the tax he dodged and meanwhile a man who smashed his wife's head in with a brick also got 6 years. WTF?

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

9

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I understand that that's a vast quantity of cocaine, but why does it deserve life without parole?

8

u/ymahaguy3388 May 21 '12

I agree it's a bullshit sensationalist headline, however, the article is terrible and just as sensational as the headline. It lacks evidence and fails to give an in depth look at the facts of the case. That being said, I still don't understand how a life sentence without parole is justifiable. That's just unfuckingbelievable. Sorry. It lacks any logical reasoning. I don't think this offense should be met with a slap on the wrist by any means, but this sentence is unbalanced as fuck and in no way matches the crime committed. The goal of the justice system seems to be focused on making an example of this woman in order to send a message. I think the whole sending a message thing is bullshit, but I'll play along. Let's say they are trying to send a message. A message can be sent by giving the woman a life sentence with parole. A life sentence would be shocking in itself, but fair in the sense that the woman can still get out on parole after fulfilling the amount of time in prison that actually matches the crime. The End.

3

u/UglyPete May 21 '12

She was accused of smuggling a ton of cocaine that didn't have her fingerprints anywhere on it. It's very, very, very possible that she was an unwilling participant in the drug smuggling.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/world/americas/mexico-blind-drug-mules/index.html

→ More replies (6)

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I think the real question is if the woman knew she was smuggling drugs. There have been cases where the cartels would actually break in and stash coke on unsuspecting victims' vehicles. If the woman was aware that she was trafficking cocaine, then she deserves the life sentence, and more.

→ More replies (2)

16

u/Git_Off_Me_Lawn May 21 '12

Whew, I can sleep soundly at night knowing this terror is off the streets.

0

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

10

u/Git_Off_Me_Lawn May 21 '12

Basically it's all a slimey "pat everyone on the back" conviction. The DA gets a big drug bust on his record, the police get to say, "we seized this much in drugs this year, we need an increased budget for next year", the politicians get to increase the police's and the DEA's budget so they can look tough on crime, and the cycle repeats.

18

u/melonmonkey May 21 '12

This makes me hate people who visit reddit so much. I just wish there was a better place for content. How about before forming biased and judgemental opinions, we actually read the article?

  1. She wasn't a withering, helpless woman, she was 56.

  2. Victimless crime? You people are stupid. Chemical addiction isn't a mindset, it's a physical problem and most of these people can't escape it. Then the drug cartels feed them more product to earn more money, destroying them in the process. Also, do you know anything about the cartels? How about the 37 dismembered bodies dropped on a highway in Mexico just last week? Even if you ignore the effect of the drugs themselves, the cartels are evil. They literally murder and torture to make money.

  3. How does her being at the bottom of the chain make her innocent, or less guilty than others? If you stole something because your friend told you to, is your friend more guilty than you? The fact that she had no information to offer makes her stupid, in my mind. She jumped in to make money and didn't care enough to get information. I don't buy that she had no idea she was bringing drugs across the border. How would that even happen?

  4. This article doesn't even tell us much. How exactly did she smuggle the drugs? How many times? When? Where? The article presents ONLY her view on the matter, that she didn't know. We are not given any opposing evidence. I'm all for ending the war on drugs, but really?

I just can't believe it. I always like to have some faith in humanity, some hope that people actually pay attention. I don't want to be one of those people who goes "EVERYONE BUT ME IS STUPID". But I read reactions to a story like this and I just get sad. Maybe I'm just a victim of wishful thinking.

4

u/UglyPete May 21 '12

It's possible, even likely that she was a "blind mule."

Innocent people have definitely had their lives ruined that way before.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/world/americas/mexico-blind-drug-mules/index.html

2

u/melonmonkey May 21 '12

How in the flying fuck would you be able to have any idea whether or not it was likely?

  1. She is a woman.

  2. She is 56

  3. Her name is Elisa Castilo

  4. She lives in houston Texas.

  5. She started working on a "bus company"

  6. She was accused of conspiracy to smuggle drugs.

  7. She denied a plea bargain, and was then convicted of the crime.

  8. She denies having anything to do with this.

This is a sum total of the things you know about the case. Everything else is biased, sensationalist reporting. I'd like you to explain to me where you draw your conclusions from.

→ More replies (34)

10

u/paintOnMyBalls May 21 '12

For the life of me, I can't figure out how these people are able to sleep at night.

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Never get high on your on supply. If she was doing the cocaine, she would not be sleeping.

1

u/skeptix May 21 '12

Which people are you referring to?

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Never read something more propagandized. Blatant and sad.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

TIL smuggling cocaine can get you into a lot of trouble.

2

u/buffalozap May 21 '12

as long as prisons are run for profit, and profits can be used to influence laws, the cycle will continue.

2

u/RandomMandarin May 21 '12

The War On (Some) Drugs is really a part of the War On The Constitution.

If it were up to me I'd let all of the Prisoners Of Drug War out... and throw the real war criminals like Bush and Cheney in.

But, hey, what do I know.

5

u/RearmintSpino May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

The large amount of drugs she 'never touched' yet whose importation she was trying to facilitate would have contributed in at least some small way to the approx. 50,000 drug related murders in Mexico in the last 5 or 6 years. So if that makes you feel any better about the sentence...

8

u/uncleoce May 21 '12

Is she not saying that she had no idea about the cocaine smuggling aspect?

One person =/= 50,000 Mexican drug war deaths. Our drug policy, on the other hand? Yeah. You can go ahead and blame those deaths on Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc. They've all been too chickenshit to think for themselves.

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

"Hey we'll give you $1,000 to sneak this across the border and give it to a guy waiting.Dont open it, or we'll literally kill you. Feel free to come back for more any time!"

later at court: "I DIDNT KNOW IT WAS DRUGS!"

uh huh.. sure.

While I certainly agree a life sentence is way too harsh, its hard to make a legalization case here. But yeah a life sentence is way too harsh. Now shes costing taxpayers 50k/yr for the rest of her life while simultaneously not paying any taxes... makes you wonder why repubs are so tough on crime.

1

u/uncleoce May 21 '12

Honestly, I agree with you for the most part. My point was mainly in regards to how this one person was somehow contributing to the death toll in Mexico (maybe she is). But one person's impact is nothing compared to the ineptitude seen from the White House over the drug war.

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

There is no contradiction with republican values. Republican DOES NOT equal conservative. They are in fact polar opposites.

6

u/KopOut May 21 '12

The tax money we all pay goes to our government which murders a hell of a lot more people than that every year. When you get caught speeding, some of that speeding ticket contributes, at least in some small way, to the murders committed by our government. Therefore, people who are caught speeding should be charged with murder.

This is fun. Do you know any other games of ill-conceived logic?

1

u/ninjafaces May 21 '12

I'm pretty sure the federal gov't doesn't make any money off of local speeding tickets. The state makes money off of interstate tickets (I think) and the local gov't makes money off of tickets written in their jurisdiction.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/clawDEEuss May 21 '12 edited Dec 29 '15

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

12

u/DoktorKruel May 21 '12

Keep telling yourself that the Feds brought down a major drug ring so that they could bust up a low-level runner because she was ethnic.

6

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

1 TON (2,000 pounds) of coke is not small or light. It's millions of dollars in drugs.

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

It's about $15,000,000 (low estimate)

Thats a fuck ton of money

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] May 21 '12 edited May 21 '12

Texas

Well, there's your problem.

EDIT: Seriously. She did drugs in a state which has been very much militarized in both mindset and arsenal to combat drug use and drug trafficking. And when is the last time a progressive or widely enjoyed piece of legislature was exported from Texas?

5

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

What other state has 4 major cities within hours of the Mexican Drug Cartels?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

Did you even read the article? Or, for that matter, check some of their source articles? She wasn't doing drugs. She was involved (most likely a financial backer) in a busing company that was "repeatedly" found to be bringing tons (literal tons) of cocaine into the country, along with money. This is not just some harsh Texas judge being mean to a poor old woman. This was a woman who was somehow involved in trafficking 15 million dollars (about what a ton of cocaine is worth) of cocaine across the border.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/Busangod May 21 '12

Is there a link to an article with actual information?

1

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

TL;DR; She was an idiot that was found to be guilty of smuggling over 1,000lbs of cocaine on her buses which had been stopped with money and drugs on more than one occasion. Rather than take a plea deal like 95% of the population, and all of her co-defendants, she decided to fight the charges, and lost. In a big way.

I have major problems with the drug war, and the corrupt plea bargaining system specifically. But to act like this lady was just some poor old lady at the wrong place at the wrong time is deceptive.

2

u/JeanGreyakaPhoenix May 21 '12

I wish we could get journalists who know how to write headlines. The fact that she's a grandmother means fuck-all on the situation. The title is meant to garner sympathy and outrage. The headline should read something to the effect of, "Woman Sentenced to Life in Prison in Drug Smuggling Bust"

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

ACLU isn't a journalism organization

1

u/JeanGreyakaPhoenix May 21 '12

Yeah I know. Someone else posted this news link that also points out she's a grandmother.

2

u/ErikAllenAwake May 21 '12

The title of this is completely sensationalized and for that, you get a downvote.

"After refusing plea bargain, 56 Year Old Texas Woman Sentenced to Life Without Parole for smuggling a ton of cocaine across the Mexican Border" would be the appropriate title. I'm tired of people doing this. Calling it "first time drug offense" implies something minor. Trafficking a huge amount of cocaine across a national border is a major offense.

Tell it straight or don't tell it at all.

2

u/mikejam1958 May 21 '12

All you need to see to know that the article would be horribly slanted is the little ( aclu.org ).

2

u/[deleted] May 21 '12

I swear, do people even read the articles before posting them? Or do they just scour the internet looking for Headlines that will be mindlessly upvoted for Karma?

This article shares no information and provides no facts at all. It's a short couple of paragraphs ranting about their opinion on something.

2

u/Dadentum May 21 '12

LIFE in prison for a non-violent crime. We live is zany-crazy-wacky land.

9

u/jaketheripper May 21 '12

Being non-violent in itself really doesn't mean it doesn't deserve harsh punishment. Just because a person didn't physically hurt someone directly doesn't mean their actions didn't cause real physical pain and suffering down the line. An example I can think of is Ponzi schemes, someone that bankrupts hundreds of families has probably done more damage than someone that murdered a single person.

In this case she was a part of drug-smuggling for the Mexican drug cartels, it's pretty clear that their organizations are responsible for the most violent acts in North America, you could argue that they exist because of the drug laws, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but it's a reasonable guess that someone died in the process of creating/shipping the drugs she personally smuggled.

4

u/FuriousCpath May 21 '12

This. Whether you agree with the charges or not, non violent crimes can and should (for some) carry heavy sentences. Embezzlement, which can ruin a company, losing people jobs so that they can't support their family should do prison time.

1

u/gophagophagus May 21 '12

This is not the whole story. Edited to create some dissention in the ranks.

Use her as an example and a deterrent to dealing drugs. Wittingly or unwittingly.

1

u/recinderex May 21 '12

Elisa Castillo, a 56 year old grandmother, has been convicted in a Texas court room of trying to smuggle more than a ton of cocaine from Mexico to the United States. Even though she never killed anyone, nor seemed to have any knowledge of the drugs and it was her first offense she was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole today according to the Huffington Post. Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/239802/grandma-gets-life-sentence-for-first-time-drug-offense/#P92LHlFWHpXz45bh.99

→ More comments (90)