one bullet

pops401

One bullet, 15 yearsBy Des Moines Register Editorial Board What sort of country would put a man in a federal prison for 15 years for possessing a single .22-caliber bullet? Ours would. And it did, in one of the most bizarre applications of federal sentencing guidelines that substitute a formula for common sense.Dane Allen Yirkovsky, 38, of Lisbon is no candidate for sainthood. He served time for burglaries, and authorities believed he was involved in other crimes. Yet, the only offense for which he is now imprisoned was possessing a single bullet. Because of that, he will be a guest of the American taxpayers for up to 15 years.Yirkovsky's saga began when he happened to come across a loaded .22-caliber round while pulling up carpets in the home of a friend who was putting him up in exchange for some remodeling work. He stuck the bullet in a box in his room. The bullet was discovered by police who were searching Yirkovksy's room after his ex-girlfriend asserted he had some of her belongings.While Yirkovsky possessed no weapon - just the single bullet - prosecutors in the U.S. District Attorney's office in Cedar Rapids hoped to squeeze information out of Yirkovsky about other crimes. He was charged with being a felon in possession of ammunition. Even though Yirkovsky pleaded guilty and cooperated, the feds refused to reduce the severity of the charge.Thus, Yirkovsky appeared before U.S. District Judge Michael Melloy, who had no alternative but to impose the sentence prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. Yirkovsky was classified an "armed career criminal" because of the prior convictions - despite the fact that he never used a weapon in any of those burglaries - and the formula spit out his sentence: 180 months.Because the federal system has no opportunity for parole, Yirkovsky will serve at least 85 percent of that time, perhaps all of it, depending on his behavior.The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals conceded that Yirkovsky's sentence was "extreme," but it nonetheless rejected his appeal, saying, "[O]ur hands are tied in this matter by the mandatory minimum sentence which Congress established." Three other 8th Circuit judges later said the full court should have reconsidered that decision. "I suggest that on its face the sentence is grossly disproportionate," Circuit Judge Morris Sheppard Arnold wrote on behalf of the three dissenting judges.Arnold went on to say that the severity of sentences under the sentencing guidelines "is, or ought to be, a matter of great public concern to every citizen. The number of people incarcerated in this country is unparalleled and growing exponentially, and the costs of criminal penalties in terms of dislocated lives and public treasure is probably incalculable."This is but one example of the abuses that occur under the federal guidelines. Because prosecutors have the power to threaten suspects with sentences that can stretch for decades, defendants are forced to plead guilty in hope of getting a better deal. Yet, because prosecutors hold all the cards, as Yirkovsky discovered, many offenders will spend the better part of their productive lives behind bars.While Yirkovsky's radically disproportionate sentence defies rational explanation, it is the product of a system that Congress appears unwilling to change and the federal judiciary pretends is beyond its control.This case should shock the conscience of every judge sworn to uphold the Constitution. That they did not strike down the law that made it possible is an abdication of their duty.