| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Eric 'my people' Holder seeks to end mandetory minimums, empty prisons. |
| 2013-08-12 |
| [Chicago Tribune] WASHINGTON - The Justice Department plans to change how it prosecutes some non-violent drug offenders, so they would no longer face mandatory minimum prison sentences, in an overhaul of federal prison policy that Attorney General Eric Holder will unveil on Monday. Holder will outline the status of a broad, ongoing project intended to improve Justice Department sentencing policies across the country in a speech to the American Bar Association in San Francisco. "I have mandated a modification of the Justice Department's charging policies so that certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who have no ties to large-scale organizations, gangs, or cartels, will no longer be charged with offenses that impose draconian mandatory minimum sentences," Holder is expected to say, according to excerpts of his prepared remarks provided by the Justice Department. "I have mandated"....an unelected official issuing mandates. Very nice, very democratic. The United States imprisons a higher percentage of its population than other large countries, largely because of anti-drug laws passed in the 1980s and 1990s. Higher percentage of precisely what population ? Holder will also reveal a plan to create a slate of local guidelines to determine if cases should be subject to federal charges. And State charges, what about them ? The attorney general will point to the bipartisan backing of such goals in Congress, where there is "legislation aimed at giving federal judges more discretion in applying mandatory minimums to certain drug offenders." Conservative groups with leaders including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, anti-tax activist Grover Norquist and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have called for changing U.S. crime and prison policies, Justice Department officials note. Support from conservatives has come in part because of the enormous bite that prison costs take out of state budgets. Ok, so enforcement is now based on funding vs the law and what former elected officials think ? The bipartisan backing could be important because the Obama administration will need Republican support for any major changes in Congress. Congress is not needed if he simply sets aside enforcement like he does in many other areas. More recently, as crime rates have dropped sharply in most major urban areas, public demand for lengthy prison terms has waned, and both liberal and conservative states have changed their laws to incarcerate fewer people. Allowing the drug thugs to operate in urban areas once again will do what ? Congress has moved more slowly than state legislatures. But conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats have both called for pulling back on the use of mandatory minimum prison terms. In his speech, Holder plans to cite proposals by Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), two of the Senate's leading liberals, and Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), two tea party favorites, that would give judges more leeway in sentencing drug offenders. "By reserving the most severe penalties for serious, high-level or violent drug traffickers, we can better promote public safety, deterrence and rehabilitation, while making our expenditures smarter and more productive," Holder says in his speech. Obviously the term "gateway" no long applies. Holder is expected to say that laws like these could save the United States billions of dollars. Billions to be spend on what ? The attorney general will also announce an updated plan for considering release for "inmates facing extraordinary or compelling circumstances - and who pose no threat to the public." What, inmates without tats must remain incarcerated ? |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #10 fwiw, the mandatory minimums for federal drug crime is here the most famous issue here is that the minimum sentence begins at 28 grams for crack and 500 grams for powder cocaine Congress should have fixed this years ago (about 200/500 would be more realistic) but perhaps no one wants to sponsor the 'leniency for crack possessors' act |
| Posted by: lord garth 2013-08-12 20:57 |
| #9 Many times the appearance of a severe sentence for "non-violent" drug crimes is because there wasn't enough evidence to get a conviction on a much more serious crime. Remember Al Capone was responsible for many deaths but he went "Up the River" for tax evasion. Think O.J. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2013-08-12 18:05 |
| #8 This move won't empty prisons. 1. it only applies to Federal drug crime. 2. only for those with no violent crime history 3. doesn't affect existing inmates The action by Holder is well within the general administrative authority of the prosecutorial discretion of the DOJ. Notwithstanding the above I agree that, assuming a general consensus that the change is needed, it would be desirable to have Congress actually change the mandatory minimums rather than do this via administrative discretion. |
| Posted by: lord garth 2013-08-12 17:36 |
| #7 Eric 'my people' Holder seeks to end mandetory minimums, empty prisons. In time for 2014 elections? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-08-12 15:26 |
| #6 I have a few conflicting thoughts on this. First, I don't like this use of executive authority. Not disclosing the amount of drug seized is tantamount to lying to a court. I suppose that doesn't bother Mr. Holder, but if I were a federal prosecutor I'd refuse to comply. Second, if you don't like the law, change it. Seems like there is enough sentiment in Congress to do so with bipartisan support. Who knows, perhaps working together on something would be contagious. Third, marijuana laws for adults indeed are too severe. I'd remove prison time all together and make marijuana use and possession a misdemeanor punished with a modest fine. Serial abusers might get a little community service. Traffickers would face forfeiture and confiscation but no prison time. Marijuana might be a gateway drug for some but we've lost this part of the drug war pure and simple. Fourth, Mr. Holder is correct in that low-level, nonviolent offenders without ties to gangs and drug lords should not be in prison. Prison is simply graduate school for hoodlums. But the Attorney General should not be modifying the law, he should be following it, and advising Congress how to make it better. Don't look for Mr. Holder to do any of that. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2013-08-12 13:48 |
| #5 Concurrent with this is the move to block employers from refusing to hire convicts. Of course the same people pushing this are NOT going to relieve employers of liability when said employee engage in destructive/anti-social behaviors. Welcome to the Oligarchy. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-08-12 13:31 |
| #4 Let my People go! |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2013-08-12 12:12 |
| #3 He has mandated against the mandatory. In the bad old days, otherwise law abiding kids who smoked pot were criticized for deciding which laws they would obey and which laws they would not obey. After all, this is a democracy so if you don't like the law you should change it instead of breaking it. Now we have Holder and his boss who decide which laws they will enforce and which laws they will not enforce. As far as I'm concerned they're far worse than the old dope smoking hippies who were too stoned to get off their asses and change anything. They've just thrown democracy right out of the window. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2013-08-12 11:33 |
| #2 1. Anything Holder touches is almost by definition bad for the US 2. US Federal criminal law is completely out of control, and mandatory minimums are definately part of the problem. 3. Anyone who dislikes large, unaccountable government should oppose current drug laws. 4. Rather than address any of these real problems, looks like Holder is using them as a fig leaf excuse to release bad guys from prison just because they are black. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2013-08-12 10:55 |
| #1 Seems fair to me, don't enforce the laws, just execute the perps. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2013-08-12 10:36 |