Sentenced for a Crime He Was Acquitted of by a Jury of His Peers

 Throughout the last fifteen years I've spent in prison, so far, I've heard a lot of prisoners claim to be innocent of their charges. I'm sure some have been actually innocent. Innocence clinics and other justice organizations have helped many prisoners throughout the United States to prove their innocence. DNA and challenging questionable forensic science has helped. 

But the reality is, the vast majority of people in prison are guilty of the crimes they've been convicted of. However, not all have been fairly or justly sentenced. In fact, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of prisoners have a problem with their sentence. Some problems are insignificant, but some are very consequential. 

I was astonished, for example, when I discovered people who plead guilty to one charge in exchange for other charges being dropped can have the dropped charges used against them when determining a sentence. Almost nobody who accepts a plea knows that this practice is legal. That, to me, is the definition of an illusory plea (which is unconstitutional). 

Even worse, if someone goes to trial, is convicted on one charge but found not guilty on another charge, the sentencing judge can legally use the acquitted charge to enhance the person's sentence. Essentially, the judge can reject the jury's finding and punish a person for a charge they were not convicted of. It's ludicrous, but the highest Court in our nation has found this practice constitutional. 

Daytona McClinton*, for example, was convicted by a jury of his peers of armed robbery, but the jury found him not guilty of murder. The judge, believing McClinton WAS guilty and unsatisfied with the jury's verdict, enhanced his sentence. Instead of a sentence of up to 71 months, McClinton was sentenced to an additional 13 years in prison based on the acquitted conduct. Preposterous! How can that be constitutional?! Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld McClinton's enhanced and unjust sentence.

What is the point of a jury trial if acquitted conduct is still used to lock a person up even longer? What is the point of taking a plea deal when dropped charges are used to enhance a person's sentence? It's not fair, and it ought not be legal. 

Our country has become so obsessed with locking people up that the U.S. Constitution hardly provides any protections for its citizens anymore. The Founding Fathers once stated that they'd rather have the injustice of a guilty person going free than the injustice of an innocent person being punished. Our country has lost that value of protecting its innocent citizens against unjust punishments. 

Yet, most of America's citizens don't even know they are losing their Constitutional protections. They are ignorant until they are faced with the reality in their own family. Until then, we are just a bunch of disgruntled prisoners who "should have stayed out of prison." 

It's true. I wouldn't be in prison if it weren't for my own stupid and unjust choices. That's on me. But what's not on me is the multiplication of injustice carried out by the court system (the "justice" system). They do what they want, when they want, to whom they want. If you're not fortunate enough to have a high powered, high paid lawyer who can negotiate backroom deals (its own form of injustice), you're exposed to the unjust machinations of the system. 

McClinton shouldn't have been involved in crime. It's absolutely true, that was unjust. But sentencing him for a crime he was acquitted of is not justice either. We can't right wrongs with more wrongs. 

* (McClinton v. United States, 143 S.Ct. 2400 (2023))