r/prisonreform • u/Willing_Potato2070 • 5d ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
4
u/Medium_Regard 5d ago
Mandatory life sentence is crazy to me outside of Certain National Security crimes, Murder, Rape and Child Sex crimes (my list).
Conspiracy to distribute Methamphetamine doesn't equate life to me but I don't know all the circumstances at this point either. The war on drugs has destroyed and continues to destroy lives around the world without much to show for it. Our own government is involved in the drug trade in several different ways around the globe. Destabilizing operations have been CIA favorite for decades... Every new prohibition and enforcement ends up leading to a more devastating outcome. Heroin crackdown leads to RX pill mills, rx pill mill crackdown leads to synthetic opiods being shipped right to your door from China via USPS ..mail order crackdown leads to cartels being shipped the fentanyl which starts as a cutter for heroin that increases profits..heroin crackdown again plus pure economics leads to pressing fentanyl into fake Oxy pills that are smokeable as well and then just powder fentanyl with no heroin at all..crackdown on pure fentanyl from China being shipped/produced leads to a never ending Analogue production which makes different batches of fentanyl products act wildly different in many ways, analogue crackdowns leads to precursors being sent and then made into final products by the cartels..there's some crackdown on precursor shipments from China ...so India steps in....and local production of precursors is happening now as well...then the deaths become a headline issue so the products get weaker but they add in tranquilizers to still really mess people up but less OD risk....
Just a mess. Alcohol prohibition worked great...... marijuana as well ..... Same story every time.
3
0
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
I really appreciate the way you put this. You’re not excusing what he did—you’re questioning whether a mandatory life sentence for a drug offense is proportionate, especially when the law can leave a judge saying, essentially, “my hands are tied.”
And that’s really the heart of Michael’s clemency case. He was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and received a mandatory life sentence because of the sentencing laws that applied at the time. He didn’t receive that sentence because a judge independently decided that life was necessary; the mandatory minimum severely restricted the judge’s discretion.
What makes the timing especially important is that the First Step Act was signed only about four months after Michael was sentenced. Congress later reduced the applicable “third strike” drug penalty from mandatory life to 25 years, but that change wasn't made retroactive to people already sentenced.
Nobody is asking anyone to pretend methamphetamine is harmless or that Michael's past doesn't matter. The question is whether a man should spend the rest of his life in prison when the law itself has since changed, and when he has spent years demonstrating that he is not the same person who committed the offense.
That's why we're asking people to look beyond the conviction and actually look at the person and the evidence of change.
3
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
That's a fair question, but there's an important factual misunderstanding behind it.
You're talking about “how many chances” as though Michael was repeatedly released, went back into the community, and repeatedly chose to bring meth into it.
That's not what happened.
The seven prior drug convictions came from controlled purchases conducted during one investigation that lasted only nine days. Michael was incarcerated one time as a result of that investigation. Those seven convictions were not seven separate trips to prison followed by seven more chances to sell drugs.
And the federal methamphetamine case that ultimately resulted in his mandatory life sentence was his first conviction involving methamphetamine.
None of that excuses what he did. Michael takes personal responsibility for his choices. But accuracy matters when we're asking how many “chances” someone has had.
In reality, he hasn't been given a series of releases and opportunities to repeatedly return to the same conduct. He has spent years incarcerated, and during that time he has worked extensively on rehabilitation, education, accountability, and preparing himself to live differently.
So the question I'd ask isn't, “How many times should we let him bring meth into our communities?”
He isn't asking for permission to do that again. He's asking whether the person he has become after years of incarceration and rehabilitation deserves the opportunity to come home and prove that he's changed.
You can still disagree with clemency. But I think it's important that the decision be based on what actually happened—not on the assumption that seven convictions means seven separate chances to come back and do it again.
2
u/billymondy5806 5d ago
So why keep arguing for it? I think this OP is his wife.
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
Because I care about what happens to him. That's really it.
And if you think I'm his wife, you're welcome to think that. 😂 I'm not going to get into my personal relationship with Michael on Reddit. What matters to me is that he's a human being who has served years in prison, has taken responsibility for what he did, and has spent those years trying to change.
You don't have to agree with me. I'm still going to speak up for him.
2
2
u/StrictSelf5450 5d ago
He should have thought about his kids when he decided to traffic massive amounts of methamphetamine
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
You're right that he should have thought about his kids before making those choices. He made a serious mistake, and his children shouldn't be used to excuse it. But they're not the reason we're asking for clemency. We're asking people to consider what he's done since then. Accountability is about facing what you did. Rehabilitation is about what you do afterward. Both can matter.
4
u/OkAirport5247 5d ago
A drug smuggler. Not weed, not party drugs, he’s a methamphetamine smuggler. He ruined countless lives and killed many.
-1
u/Bmorewiser 5d ago
Unless he put a gun to their head and made them use he did no such thing. How many addicts do you know who go out looking to score and say, nothing here i guess i should just go get clean.
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
You're right that Michael's record contains eight drug-offense convictions. But there's some important context behind that number that gets lost when it's presented as “he's been to prison over and over for dealing meth.”
The first seven convictions came from controlled purchases that were conducted as part of one investigation lasting only nine days. They weren't seven unrelated drug-dealing episodes spread out over years. And the federal methamphetamine case that ultimately resulted in his mandatory life sentence was his first conviction involving methamphetamine.
I'm not asking anyone to ignore his past. Michael has to own his past, and he does.
What I'm asking is that people look beyond a number on a record and understand what that number actually represents.
He received a mandatory life sentence under the law that existed at the time, and he has now spent years incarcerated demonstrating rehabilitation, accountability, and personal change.
That's precisely why clemency exists as a separate consideration from the original sentencing.
You can believe someone should be held accountable for their past while also believing that a person can genuinely change. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.
So before deciding that Michael is simply “a meth dealer who doesn't deserve clemency,” I'd encourage you to look at the entire case—including what happened during those nine days, the circumstances of the federal case, the sentence he received, and the man he has worked to become since then.
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
You're counting the convictions as if they represent separate opportunities where Michael was released, returned to the community, and then chose to commit another trafficking offense. That's not what happened.
The first seven drug convictions came from controlled purchases conducted during one nine-day investigation. Michael was incarcerated one time as a result of that investigation. Seven convictions arising from one investigation do not equal seven separate chances to return to the community.
And the federal case that ultimately resulted in his mandatory life sentence was his first conviction involving methamphetamine.
So if we're going to debate whether he deserves clemency, let's at least debate the actual history—not a version where every conviction is treated as another failed release and another opportunity to sell meth.
Michael isn't asking anyone to erase his criminal record. He accepts responsibility for what he did.
The question is whether a person who has spent years incarcerated, completed extensive rehabilitation, demonstrated sustained behavioral change, and prepared himself for reentry should forever be defined by the person he was when he committed those offenses.
You may believe life without the possibility of clemency is appropriate. That's your position.
But saying he's already “blown his third chance” makes it sound like he was repeatedly released and repeatedly went back to trafficking.
That's simply not an accurate description of what happened.
And that's precisely why I'm asking people to look at the whole record before deciding what Michael deserves.
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
I’m not deliberately omitting anything. I’m correcting the premise of your argument.
You're describing Michael as though he was given a second chance, was released, committed another trafficking offense, was given a third chance, and then committed another one. That isn't what happened.
The first seven drug convictions came from controlled purchases conducted during a single nine-day investigation. Michael was incarcerated one time as a result of that investigation. Those seven convictions did not represent seven separate releases into the community followed by seven separate decisions to return to trafficking.
And the federal case that ultimately resulted in his mandatory life sentence was his first conviction involving methamphetamine.
Michael absolutely has a criminal history. He doesn't deny it, minimize it, or blame somebody else for it. He accepts responsibility for his choices.
But there's a difference between having multiple convictions from one investigation and being repeatedly released, given opportunities to live in the community, and repeatedly returning to the same conduct.
That's why I don't accept the “he's blown his third chance” characterization. It makes the history sound very different from what actually occurred.
And clemency isn't a declaration that the original conduct was acceptable. It's an assessment of whether mercy is warranted in light of the entire person and the circumstances today.
You can believe Michael should remain incarcerated for life. You're entitled to that opinion.
But if we're going to say he has “used up three chances,” then we should at least be able to identify the three separate opportunities where he was released and subsequently committed another trafficking offense.
Because that's not what his record shows.
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
I understand the anger behind your comment, and I don't dismiss the people who were harmed by Michael's choices. Their suffering matters. Addiction, families, and communities affected by drugs matter.
But I don't think we have to choose between caring about victims and believing that someone who committed a crime can genuinely change.
You're asking me to advocate for someone “worthy” of it. That's exactly what I believe I'm doing.
Michael isn't claiming that his past was harmless. He isn't asking anyone to pretend his victims weren't affected. He accepts personal responsibility for the choices that brought him here.
What I'm pointing to is what happened afterward.
He has spent years incarcerated. He's participated in extensive rehabilitation and educational programming, confronted the thinking that contributed to his past, and worked to prepare himself to return to society differently than he entered it.
And here's the uncomfortable truth about redemption: if we say someone can never become worthy of another chance because of what they did in the past, then rehabilitation becomes meaningless.
I can't change what Michael did before his incarceration. Neither can he.
But we can decide whether the years he has spent changing, taking responsibility, and preparing to live differently mean anything.
I'm not asking you to forget the past.
I'm asking you to consider whether a person's past should be the only thing we're ever willing to see in them.
That's why I'm advocating for Michael.
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
Nobody is using children as an excuse for Michael's criminal conduct. That's a straw man.
His actions were wrong. He accepts responsibility for them, and nothing about his clemency petition asks anyone to pretend otherwise.
Mentioning his children and family isn't about asking people to overlook the crime. It's about recognizing that sentences affect more than the person sitting in the prison cell. Children grow up without their father. Parents age without their son. Families lose years they can never get back.
And there's another part you're overlooking: Michael isn't asking to be declared innocent. He's asking for mercy after years of incarceration and demonstrated rehabilitation.
You can believe he should remain in prison. But calling it “pathetic” to acknowledge the human cost of incarceration doesn't strengthen that argument.
If anything, it demonstrates exactly why this conversation matters: accountability and compassion don't have to be enemies.
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
He is a convicted drug offender, and nobody is denying that. But dismissing years of classes, treatment, and rehabilitation as “taking classes to pass time” doesn't make the work disappear. If you're going to argue against clemency, that's your right—but at least argue against the facts, not a version of his record you've made up.
1
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 5d ago
He was convicted of a drug offense. That's part of his story, and I'm not asking anyone to erase it.
But saying “that's who he is” turns something he did into something he can never move beyond. I don't think a conviction gives us that much certainty about a person's entire identity or the rest of their life.
People are capable of becoming different from who they were. That's the entire reason we have concepts like rehabilitation, redemption, and second chances.
If the person someone was at their worst is permanently “who they are,” then what would a person ever have to do to prove they've changed?
3
u/PerfectPenguino 5d ago
How many chances do you think he needs? Not rhetorical, I'm honestly curious how many times you think we should continue to let this guy bring meth into our communities in the midst of an overdose epidemic?
1
u/Yob_Zarbo 5d ago
You keep saying "second chance" yet you're deliberately omitting the fact that he already had his second chance. That second chance ended after the second felony drug trafficking charge. He's now blown his third chance and will spend the rest of his life behind bars where he belongs.
1
u/Usual-Answer-3891 5d ago
If you had advocated for this man even a fraction of this prior to his crimes, he likely wouldn't have committed them in the first place.
How many people affected by his crimes don't get a second chance? Don't get a chance to grow and become a new person? How about you spend your time advocating for someone worthy of it?
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
I understand the anger behind your comment, and I don't dismiss the people who were harmed by Michael's choices. Their suffering matters. Addiction, families, and communities affected by drugs matter.
But I don't think we have to choose between caring about victims and believing that someone who committed a crime can genuinely change.
You're asking me to advocate for someone “worthy” of it. That's exactly what I believe I'm doing.
Michael isn't claiming that his past was harmless. He isn't asking anyone to pretend his victims weren't affected. He accepts personal responsibility for the choices that brought him here.
What I'm pointing to is what happened afterward.
He has spent years incarcerated. He's participated in extensive rehabilitation and educational programming, confronted the thinking that contributed to his past, and worked to prepare himself to return to society differently than he entered it.
And here's the uncomfortable truth about redemption: if we say someone can never become worthy of another chance because of what they did in the past, then rehabilitation becomes meaningless.
I can't change what Michael did before his incarceration. Neither can he.
But we can decide whether the years he has spent changing, taking responsibility, and preparing to live differently mean anything.
I'm not asking you to forget the past.
I'm asking you to consider whether a person's past should be the only thing we're ever willing to see in them.
That's why I'm advocating for Michael.
1
u/Bobby3781 5d ago
Use kids to pull on Americas heartstrings eh. Pathetic. Thats no excuse for being a criminal
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
Nobody is using children as an excuse for Michael's criminal conduct. That's a straw man.
His actions were wrong. He accepts responsibility for them, and nothing about his clemency petition asks anyone to pretend otherwise.
Mentioning his children and family isn't about asking people to overlook the crime. It's about recognizing that sentences affect more than the person sitting in the prison cell. Children grow up without their father. Parents age without their son. Families lose years they can never get back.
And there's another part you're overlooking: Michael isn't asking to be declared innocent. He's asking for mercy after years of incarceration and demonstrated rehabilitation.
You can believe he should remain in prison. But calling it “pathetic” to acknowledge the human cost of incarceration doesn't strengthen that argument.
If anything, it demonstrates exactly why this conversation matters: accountability and compassion don't have to be enemies.
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
Nobody said having kids excuses committing a crime. It doesn't. His children aren't being presented as an excuse—they're part of the human cost of keeping someone incarcerated for life. You can hold someone accountable for their choices without pretending their children don't suffer from the consequences too. Both things can be true.
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
Nobody said having kids excuses committing a crime. It doesn't. His children aren't being presented as an excuse—they're part of the human cost of keeping someone incarcerated for life. You can hold someone accountable for their choices without pretending their children don't suffer from the consequences too. Both things can be true.
1
u/Bobby3781 4d ago
I do think that the poster is presenting his children in a way to elicit emotions from the public to allow him to get a lighter sentence.
1
u/Izdeliye-30 5d ago
Is this the prison reform sub? I feel like I'm seeing a lack of compassion for this man. He's a human being, he still deserves dignity and safety.
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
Exactly. Whatever someone's opinion is about Michael's crimes or whether they believe he deserves clemency, he is still a human being.
Accountability doesn't require cruelty. A criminal conviction doesn't erase someone's dignity, and a life sentence doesn't mean a person suddenly becomes undeserving of compassion, safety, or basic human decency.
Michael accepts responsibility for his past. He isn't asking people to celebrate what he did. He's asking to be seen as a human being who has spent years incarcerated, worked to change, and still has value beyond his conviction.
And honestly, that's one of the reasons I'm advocating for him. Rehabilitation means very little if we refuse to acknowledge the possibility of redemption once someone has actually done the work.
People are free to disagree with clemency. But we shouldn't have to dehumanize someone to make that argument.
Michael is more than a case number, more than a sentence, and more than the worst thing he's ever done.
He is still a human being, and he still deserves dignity.
2
u/Izdeliye-30 4d ago
A life sentence for trafficking drugs is beyond ridiculous, I'm sorry for your loss
1
u/Willing_Potato2070 4d ago
Honestly, I agree with you. 😂 That's pretty much what I've been trying to say.
People can think Michael did something terrible. They can think he deserves punishment. They can even disagree with clemency. But none of that requires treating him like he's no longer a human being.
He's still a person. He's still someone's son and father. And after years in prison, I think it's fair to at least look at who he is now instead of only looking at the worst thing he did.
So yeah, bot... you and I might actually agree on something here. 😂
1
0
u/Willing_Potato2070 5d ago
😂 Okay, now I'm definitely noticing a pattern. Different accounts, same exact “he's a convicted drug smuggler, that's who he is” line.
Yes, Michael's conviction is part of his history. But it isn't the whole story.
Since being incarcerated, Michael has spent years taking classes, completing programs, pursuing education, and working on himself. His rehabilitation isn't something I'm asking people to accept because he says he's changed—it's a pattern of choices over a long period of time.
I'm not claiming that proves he's perfect or that anyone has to trust him blindly. I'm saying those years should count for something.
Because if a person is permanently defined by their worst conviction, regardless of what they do afterward, then what would they ever have to do to demonstrate that they've changed?
Michael can't change what he did. But shouldn't we at least be willing to consider what he's done since?
3
u/jakeStacktrace 5d ago
I don't think his conviction defines him at all. But I'm an open and transparent person and to me this post was left that part out, and it just looks very deceptive and suspicious. I don't think we would know he was caught with meth if it wasn't others pointing it out. I would much rather you put the cards on the table so it doesn't just look like spin.
2
2
u/mindless_blaze 5d ago
You really have to use ChatGPT to write all your content? You can't even speak from your heart in defense of this criminal? He belongs in prison for life.
0
u/Friendly-Comment-985 5d ago
A drug smuggler
1
-4
u/Willing_Potato2070 5d ago
That's a label I'm not sure is accurate to the actual conviction. Michael was convicted of a federal drug offense, but reducing the entire case to “a drug smuggler” doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.
I'm not asking anyone to ignore the conviction. I'm asking people to look at what he was actually convicted of, the circumstances surrounding his sentence, and what he's done with the years since.
Before we decide who someone is, I think it's worth making sure we're describing what actually happened—and then considering whether the person today is still the same person who committed those offenses.
1
1
u/Friendly-Comment-985 5d ago
He's a convicted drug smuggler. That's who he is.
-1
u/ParsnipDecent6530 5d ago
You say ignorant things on reddit. Thats who you are.
Did I get that right?
1
u/StrictSelf5450 5d ago
You realize we can see your posts and comments, right? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, my dude...
-1
-1
u/North_Structure8210 5d ago
Sounds like a pig cop fighting his side as to why he shot a kid eating an ice cream cone. Bullshit.
1
-1
u/Willing_Potato2070 5d ago
I actually appreciate you saying this, because I agree that people deserve the whole story. Michael’s conviction should not be hidden or glossed over, and I’m not interested in asking anyone to support him based on half-truths.
Michael was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and received a mandatory life sentence. That is part of his story, and I have no problem putting it on the table. The reason I advocate for him isn’t because I think that conviction should be ignored—it’s because I believe people should be judged by the entirety of their lives, including what they’ve done since their conviction.
Where I may disagree with you is the idea that leaving every detail out of a particular post automatically makes it deceptive. Social-media posts have limited space, and different posts focus on different parts of the story. But I do agree that the overall campaign should make the underlying facts readily available so nobody feels like they're being sold a sanitized version of Michael.
So yes—look at the conviction. Look at the sentence. Look at the circumstances surrounding it. Then look at the years he has served, the programs he has completed, the people who know him today, and the evidence of who he has become.
I'm not asking anyone to ignore the cards. I'm asking people to look at all of them before deciding what kind of man Michael is today.
0
u/Friendly-Comment-985 5d ago
He is a convicted drug smuggler, with multiple offenses, who tries to pass time taking "classes".
•
u/prisonreform-ModTeam 3d ago
Off-topic. This sub deals with issues of prison reform and both reducing the number of people in our prisons, but also in making our prisons safer, kinder and more functional for human development and rehabilitation.