Throughout courtrooms across America we hear words like “fair”, “harsh”, and “too lenient” being thrown around as if crime deserves an equal standard when being addressed regardless of what state or territory it’s conducted in. But wait a minute… This brings up a good point: Why shouldn’t there be a standard for all to follow?
Let’s roll back the curtain a bit. The nearest dictionary defines “justice” as- “The administration of what is just (as by assigning merited rewards- or punishment); fairness”. If that’s not a textbook definition of standard then who dictates the measuring sticks in all these cases? “We the people,” that’s who. And I don’t mean Americans across the board either because each state’s measuring stick seems to use a different system of measure.
For example: In Washington State, if I intend to shoot you but miss, I will get the same punishment as someone who actually shoots you. This is called 1st degree assault (9A.36.011(A)), and actual physical injury is not required to get a guilty verdict. However, the same charge in Oregon State requires physical injury in order to convict, according to ballot measure Eleven (163.185). Shooting at someone and missing is a misdemeanor- punishable by no more than 365 days in jail. Back in Washington State though, a first time offender faces no less than 84 months. That’s a 6 year difference across state lines!
But what about across the country in New York State? They define first degree assault as something that “causes serious physical injury” (120.10(1)). So where’s the standard in Washington?
Let’s roll back the curtain a little further: To be convicted of any crime in America, the prosecution must convince a jury that the act meets the elements (as they are often called) of the criminal statue “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is where we find our standard because every judicial court in America operates by it despite which state we may find ourselves in. But what about that 6 year difference? This is where the standard gets blurred, so let me clarify: The keyword here is “elements” because each state has their own interpretation of which “elements” constitute a particular crime. For instance, let’s return to the 1st degree assault. In Washington State, you only have to prove “intent” with means likely to produce great bodily harm. Whether or not great bodily harm exists is moot. The INTENT is what matters, because even the most reasonable could assume a gunshot wound would cause great bodily harm, so as long as you can convince a jury that I intended to shoot you, that will suffice.
In Oregon State, however, they don’t base the seriousness on intent, because they do not believe it’s the same criminal conduct as actually shooting you. They postulate 1st degree assault as an “Intentional act that causes serious physical injury”. Pure intent does not qualify; there must be bodily harm.
So who sets these different interpretations of law? In a completely indirect and hands-off way: the constituents of their respective states. “We the people”; the people vote for the very house and senate representatives who then cast their own votes on what interpretations they (not us) believe should be used as measuring sticks. This bureaucracy is what blurs the standard and affects the very families of those who voted for them.
This is why you hear words like “fair,” “harsh” and “too lenient” so often: Everyone has different interpretations of what violates “justice” because very few people actually understand (or want to understand) the excessively complex and often inflexible system that metes it out. They just vote for the man or women they like most and trust that they will make the right interpretation. This “out of sight, out of mind” approach is what has led to such inconsistencies in our judicial system, prompting the constant calls for reform amongst the new voters who have realized the conundrum we’re in.
With each new generation, we see more and more injustices happen, and with each one they become harder to avoid because they hit closer to home each time. A prime example comes from 2014, when a young man not yet the age of 26 lost in trial and was sentenced to 67.5 years in prison for a shooting that-like the one we discussed- resulted in zero injuries. And due to the sentencing reform act (SRA) enacted in 1981, he was only entitled to receive just under 4 years of earned release time (good time). This gave him a release date of 2076! However, upon entering prison and undergoing a physical exam, he was given an estimated life expectancy of 76 years old, effectively branding him with a life sentence (LWOP).
Fair? Harsh? Too lenient?
Before you answer, take this into consideration: The prosecutor offered him a plea bargain of 10 years before trial. They deemed this fair and that he should take the offer. However, he proclaimed innocence- he didn’t shoot at anybody- and had a hard time accepting a 10 year bid for something he didn’t do, so on to trial he went.
Unfortunately, this story is not uncommon. Due to the prosecution overcharging in order to substantially increase the sentencing range, defendants must sacrifice their constitutional right to a fair trial in order to obtain a fair sentence. In essence, this is a tactic called “leveraging,” used to dissuade defendants from any thoughts they may have about rejecting the offers and proceeding with trial. However, should they not be persuaded and subsequently lose in trial- like the example above- they will get hit with the abused equivalent of a life sentence instead of the 10 year proposal offered just months prior. Within that span of time their whole life is taken from them- added punishment for invoking their constitutional right rather than accepting the prosecutor’s faustian deal.
Fair? Harsh? Too lenient? Use your interpretation, but know that the story above is mine, and truth be told, I could have received more time, because of gang enhancements that the prosecution tacked on, which were subsequently approved of by the jury in the guilty verdict. Thankfully, the judge showed pity and neglected to add them to my sentence, stating that I already had so much time it didn’t seem appropriate.
Stories like mine are common because the outdated SRA is full of vague definitions and stretched interpretations of law, initially meant to be consistent and fair. However, over so much time the prosecution has learned how to leverage the doctrine in order to achieve their desired outcomes, like the 10 year deal. They do this by over charging: upgrading charges and tacking on as many as possible to practically increase the length of time with a few enhancements to boost. And where this may sound excessive, it is entirely legal. There are no guardrails to prevent strategies like this from being used, nor any balance of equal opportunity for the defense- whenever there is room for speculation the jury “must view it in light most favorable to the state”, as they say in Washington State trial proceedings. It’s either they take their offer or suffer draconian consequences.
Fair? Harsh? Too lenient?
With so much inconsistency ruling the process, does it even matter? My case is just one of many that have already run the course, but if something isn’t done to implement a few more checks and balances to the system, then the cycle is sure to continue with examples even more glaring than mine. Should there be an intervention? Is there even a remedy? Or do the ends justify the means? The upcoming legislative session would be a place to discuss it, but the choice is yours. “We the people,” remember?
My name is Thomas Lee Weatherwax, and in 2019 after fighting my case on appeal, I was able to negotiate a 30 year sentence with the prosecution in exchange for waiving my future appellate rights. The 30 years I settled for is flat time- no good time- due to the current weapons enhancement laws in Washington State. Unless changes are made to relax these laws, people will continue to be held to the inflated standard that carries with it astronomical amounts of time. With your help, we can make a change. My current release date is 9/24/2043.
IG: wax_amillion
Facebook: Wax Amillion
Thomas Weatherwax #491700
Yakima County Jail- 1120
PO Box 96777
Las Vegas, NV 89193
While Thomas has been incarcerated, his uncle, his grandmother, grandfather, step mother, and his father have all passed away. His step father is fighting a terminal cancer and his mother may live the rest of her years along. Thomas never fired a weapon and never hurt or assaulted anyone, yet he is imprisoned longer than most murderers or rapists. Where is the justice? It is unfair.and incomprehensible.
P.S. Thomas’ other grandfather has also passed during this time. His last grandmother is 83. His mother will most likely pass long before his release. Who really has been sentenced? Thomas and his family.