
Spanish: 
Nuestro actual presidente admite haber fumado una buena cantidad de marihuana en su juventud, e incluso el uso de la cocaína.
Pero si te pillan con una cierta cantidad de cocaína tres veces, usted podría estar pasando el resto de su vida en prisión. 
El presidente antes de él fue sorprendido conduciendo bajo la influencia.
Pero si usted estaba manejando a su amigo para un negocio de drogas, podría pasar el resto de su vida en prisión. 
Y el presidente antes de ese? Dice que no inhaló. 
Pero si usted fuera el que lo que vende la marihuana y él dijo que tenías un arma, usted podría pasar más de medio siglo en la cárcel. 
Aquí hay tres razones por las mínimas obligatorias son muy, muy, muy malas. 
Motivo (1): Le dan ridículamente largas condenas en relación con otros delitos. 
Tomemos el caso de Weldon Angelos, un productor de discos de veinticinco años de edad. 
Fue declarado culpable de vender marihuana un par de veces a un informante que afirmó que tenía una pistola. 

Lithuanian: 
- Our current president
admits to having smoked
a fair amount of marijuana in his youth,
and even using some cocaine.
But if you were caught with
a certain amount of cocaine,
three times, you could be spending
the rest of your life in prison.
The president before him was caught
driving under the influence,
but if you were driving
your friend to a drug deal,
you could be spending the
rest of your life in prison.
And the president before that,
he says he didn't inhale.
But if you were the one
selling him the marijuana,
and he said you had a gun on you,
you could be spending more
than half a century in prison.
Here are three reasons
why mandatory minimums
are really, really, really bad.
Reason number one: they give
ridiculously long sentences
relative to other crimes.
Take the case of Weldon Angelos,
a 25-year-old record producer.
He was convicted of selling
marijuana a couple of times
to an informant, who
claimed that he had a gun.

English: 
Our current president admits to having smoked
a fair amount of marijuana in his youth, and
even using cocaine. But if you were caught
with a certain amount of cocaine three times,
you could be spending the rest of your life
in prison.
The president before him was caught driving
under the influence. But if you were driving
your friend to a drug deal, you could be spending
the rest of your life in prison.
And the president before that? He says he
didn't inhale. But if you were the one selling
him the marijuana and he said you had a gun
on you, you could be spending more than half
a century in prison.
Here are three reasons why mandatory minimums
are really, really, really bad. Reason (1):
They give ridiculously long sentences relative
to other crimes. Take the case of Weldon Angelos,
a twenty-five-year-old record producer. He
was convicted of selling marijuana a couple
of times to an informant who claimed that

Italian: 
- Il nostro presidente attuale
ha ammesso di aver fumato
una buona quantità di marijuana nella sua adolescenza,
e anche di aver usato un po' di cocaina.
Ma se vieni scoperto con una certa
quantità di cocaina,
3 volte, potresti passare 
il resto della tua vita in prigione.
Il presidente prima di lui è stato
scoperto alla guida mentre ne era sotto influenza,
ma se provi a portare in macchina
un tuo amico verso uno spacciatore,
potresti passare il resto della
tua vita in galera.
E il presidente ancora prima di lui
ha detto che non ha mai inalato.
Ma se fossì stato colui che gli 
vendeva marijuana,
e lui avesse detto che avevi un arma con te,
potresti passare più di metà secolo
in prigione.
Ecco tre ragioni perché le sentenze
minime obbligatorie
sono una terribile idea.
Ragione numero uno: danno sentenze
ridicolosamente lunghe
rispetto ad altri crimini.
Prendiamo il caso di Weldon Angelos,
un produttore discografico di 25 anni.
Fu accusato di vendita di marijuana
un paio di volte
da un informatore, che affermava anche
che avesse un arma.

Spanish: 
Él recibió más del doble de tiempo que tendría si hubiera secuestrado un avión, detonó una bomba en público, o incluso si él era un asesino en segundo grado. 
Weldon Angelos va a ser ochenta y en el momento en que sale de la cárcel.
Él tiene hijos. ¿Puedes creer eso? Más tiempo que un asesino por vender marihuana? 
(2) Ellos castigan a las personas equivocadas.
Congreso promulgó leyes mínimas obligatorias aparentemente para perseguir a los traficantes de drogas grandes.
Los llamados delincuentes graves estarían sujetas a un mínimo de cinco años.
Los llamados grandes narcotraficantes - diez. 
Las penas aumentan a veinte años o incluso a la vida obligatorio para las personas con condenas previas por delitos graves de drogas-. 
Aquí es donde se pone difícil.
Usted puede tener una condena por drogas-crimen simplemente por compartir un cigarrillo de marihuana en un concierto con un amigo.
O, en algunos estados, simplemente por posesión de drogas para su propio uso.

English: 
he had a gun. He received more than twice
as much time as he would have if he had hijacked
an airplane, detonated a bomb in public, or
even if he was a second-degree murderer.
Weldon Angelos is going to be eighty by the
time he gets out of jail. He has kids. Can
you believe that? More time than a murderer
for selling marijuana?
(2) They punish the wrong people. Congress
enacted mandatory minimum laws ostensibly
to go after big-time drug traffickers. So-called
serious offenders would be subject to a five-year
minimum. So-called major drug traffickers
— ten. The punishments increase to twenty
years or even to mandatory life for people
with prior drug-felony convictions.
Here's where it gets tricky. You can have
a drug-felony conviction just for sharing
a marijuana cigarette at a concert with a
friend. Or, in some states, simply for possessing
drugs for your own use. Are these the kind
of people who should get twenty-year mandatory-minimum

Italian: 
Ha ricevuto il doppio della sentenza,
che avrebbe ricevuto se avesse
dirottato un aereo,
detonato una bomba in pubblico,
o anche se fosse stato un omicida
di secondo grado.
Weldon Angelos avrà 80 anni
quando dovrà uscire di prigione.
Ha dei figli.
Riusciresti a crederci?
Più tempo in galera di un omicida,
solo per aver venduto marijuana.
Numero due: puniscono le persone sbagliate.
Il congresso emanò la legge
sulle sentenze minime
per riuscire a contrastare 
il traffico di droga su larga scala.
I così chiamati "trasgressori gravi" sarebbero
soggetti
ad un minimo obbligatorio di 5 anni di prigione.
I così chiamati "grandi trafficanti di droga", dieci.
La pena aumenta a 20 anni,
o anche all'ergastolo per le persone
con precedenti offese penali relative alla droga.
Ed ecco che le cose iniziano a farsi contorte.
Potresti aver violato una legge relativa
alla droga solo per aver condiviso
una canna di marijuana ad un 
concerto con un amico.
O, in alcuni stati, semplicemente
per il possesso di droghe
per il tuo uso personale.
Sono questi il tipo di persone
che dovrebbero avere pene
minime di 20 anni, o addirittura ergastolo

Lithuanian: 
He received more than twice as much time,
as he would have if he
hijacked an airplane,
detonated a bomb in public,
or even if he was a
second-degree murderer.
Weldon Angelos is going to be 80
by the time he gets out of jail.
He has kids.
Can you believe that?
More time than a murderer
for selling marijuana.
Number two: they punish the wrong people.
Congress enacted the
mandatory minimum laws
ostensibly to go after
big time drug-traffickers.
So-called serious
offenders would be subject
to a five year mandatory minimum.
So-called major drug traffickers, ten.
The punishments increase to 20 years,
or even to a mandatory life for people
with prior drug felony convictions.
Here's where it gets tricky.
You can have a drug felony
conviction just for sharing
a marijuana cigarette at
a concert with a friend.
Or, in some states, simply
for possessing drugs
for you own use.
Are these the kind of people
who should get 20-year
mandatory minimum sentences, or even life

Lithuanian: 
if they make another
mistake down the road.
Think about that.
Five, 10, 20 years.
How much time it is that
we're really talking about.
And think about how many people you know
that could be in this category
of a prior drug offender,
just for sharing drugs
or for possessing them
for their own use.
Number three: they don't work.
When Congress passed
these laws in the 1980s,
they did so to try and
make drugs harder to find,
and more expensive.
Today, drugs are just
as available as ever,
and cheaper than before.
Given that it costs $29,000 a year
to keep someone in federal prison.
And the price of drugs has gone down
since the laws were passed.
How could we say that
these laws have worked?
We can't.
I'm Alex Kreit, criminal law professor
at Thomas Jefferson School of Law.
These are just three of the reasons
why I think mandatory
minimums are among the worst
aspects of our criminal justice system.
If you agree with me,
there is still reason
to be hopeful that these
laws can be reformed.
Click here to see my next video

English: 
sentences, or even life, if they make another
mistake down the road?
Think about that — five, ten, twenty years.
How much time it is that we're really talking
about. And think about how many people you
know who could be in this category of a prior
drug offender judge for sharing drugs or for
possessing them for their own use.
Number (3): They don't work. When Congress
passed these laws in the 1980s, they did so
to try to make drugs harder to find and more
expensive. Today, drugs are just as available
as ever, and cheaper than before.
Given that it costs $29,000 a year to keep
someone in federal prison and the price of
drugs has gone down since the laws were passed,
how could we say these laws have worked? We
can't.

Spanish: 
¿Son éstos el tipo de personas que deben recibir sentencias obligatorias mínimas-veinte-años, o incluso la vida, si hacen otro error en el camino? 
Piensen en eso - cinco, diez, veinte años. 
¿Cuánto tiempo es lo que realmente estamos hablando. 
 Y piensa en la cantidad de gente que sabes que podría ser en esta categoría de un juez delincuente de drogas previa para compartir drogas o por posesión de ellos para su propio uso. 
Número (3): Ellos no funcionan. Cuando el Congreso aprobó estas leyes en la década de 1980, lo hicieron para tratar de hacer las drogas más difíciles de encontrar y más caro.
Hoy en día, las drogas son tan disponible como siempre, y más baratas que antes. 
Teniendo en cuenta que cuesta $ 29,000 al año para mantener a alguien en prisión federal y el precio de los medicamentos ha bajado desde que se aprobaron las leyes,
¿cómo podríamos decir que estas leyes han trabajado? No podemos. 
Soy Alex Kreit, profesor de Derecho Penal de Thomas Jefferson School of Law.
Estos son sólo tres de las razones por las que creo mínimas obligatorias están entre los peores aspectos de nuestro sistema de justicia penal.
Si está de acuerdo conmigo, todavía hay razones para tener esperanzas de que estas leyes pueden ser reformadas. 

Italian: 
se fanno un solo altro errore
durante la loro vita.
Pensaci per un attimo.
5, 10, 20 anni.
Di quanto tempo stiamo veramente
parlando.
E prova a pensare  aquante persone conosci
che potrebbero essere in questa categoria,
di trasgressori di leggi sulla droga,
solo per condividere delle droghe
o per possesso
for their own use.
Numero tre: non funzionano.
Quando il Congresso ha fatto passare
queste leggi negli anni '80.
lo fecero per rendere le droghe
più difficilmente reperibili
e più costose.
Ad oggi, le droghe sono disponibili
come lo sono sempre state
e meno costose di prima.
Dato che costa $29,000 all'anno
per tenere qualcuno in una prigione federale.
E il prezzo delle droghe è sceso
da quando queste leggi sono passate.
Come possiamo dire che queste
leggi abbiano funzionato?
Non possiamo.
Sono Alex Kreit, professore di diritto penale
alla Thomas Jefferson School of Law.
Queste sono solo tre delle ragioni
per cui penso che le pene 
minime obbligatorie sono tra i peggiori
72
00:02:51,044 --> 00:02:53,386
aspetti del nostro sistema penale.
Se sei d'accordo con me,
c'è ancora un motivo
per sperare che queste leggi
vengano riformate.
Clicca qui per vedere il mio prossimo video

Lithuanian: 
about efforts to change the laws.
If you want to get involved
right now, click here.
And don't forget to
subscribe to Learn Liberty
for more videos like this one.

Spanish: 
Haga clic aquí para ver mi siguiente video sobre los esfuerzos para cambiar las leyes. 
Si usted desea participar en este momento, haga clic aquí.
Y no se olvide de suscribirse a Aprender Liberty para más videos como éste.

Italian: 
sugli sforzi per cambiare queste leggi.
Se vuoi venire coinvolto adesso,
clicca qui.
E non dimenticarti di sottoiscriverti
a Learn Liberty
    
79
00:03:14,707 --> 00:03:17,207
per altri video come questo.
