HARSH SENTENCE

The recent public mandate regarding marijuana demands some comment.
While the police and prosecutors office claim that current laws allow
them no leeway, our judges do have some options.

The recent case of 66-year old David Finley is a perfect example.
Judge Hara could have given him a much lighter sentence with
probation, or he could give him 20 years in prison. The most recent
hearing for Mr. Finley comes after our last election. One would think
that in a democracy, a judge would take into consideration the will of
the public that he serves. But, no, Judge Hara chose to completely
ignore the public will.

I've heard that it costs about $25,000 a year to house a man in
prison. Do we really want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
keeping Mr. Finley in prison? Is he being rehabilitated or is it just
the mean-spirited sentence that it appears to be?

Deputy Prosecutor Jason Skier said that a reduction of Finley's
sentence would "erode the community's respect of the law."

I've got some news for Mr. Skier: The public's respect for this law
evaporated a long time ago. Mr. Skier also argues that, after having his
house stolen from him, Mr. Finley should not be allowed to use his Social
Security to buy back his house. What about wasting tax dollars on
helicopters for decades?

The entire anti-marijuana logic goes like this: Marijuana is illegal
because it's bad, and it's bad because it's illegal. Our judges should
spend some time up at the emergency rooms and then tell us why
marijuana is in the same legal class as heroin. Or why alcohol is legal?

Steve Irvine

Hawaiian Paradise Park