HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Eric Holder May Release S...

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 10:35 PM

Eric Holder May Release Sweeping Drug Sentencing Proposal

Admits Current Practices Are Discriminatory

Attorney General Eric Holder is rumored to be proposing major reforms to drug sentencing in the coming weeks, and if a Wednesday interview with NPR is any indication, the changes could signal a pivot from the aggressive policies embraced by the Justice Department.

"I think there are too many people in jail for too long, and for not necessarily good reasons," Holder said in the interview, turning from the department's highly criticized crackdown on drug law enforcement. As NPR noted, almost half of the people in federal prison are serving time for drug charges.

"The war on drugs is now 30, 40 years old," he continued. "There have been a lot of unintended consequences. There's been a decimation of certain communities, in particular communities of color."

Holder hinted in the interview that the changes could include better prioritization of federal law enforcement and shortened sentences for minor drug offenses. According to NPR, Holder could announce his proposal as early as next week in a speech to the American Bar Association in San Francisco.

80 replies, 3315 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 80 replies Author Time Post
Reply Eric Holder May Release Sweeping Drug Sentencing Proposal (Original post)
Recursion Aug 2013 OP
snappyturtle Aug 2013 #1
forestpath Aug 2013 #2
rhett o rick Aug 2013 #11
progressoid Aug 2013 #3
immoderate Aug 2013 #4
Recursion Aug 2013 #5
rhett o rick Aug 2013 #12
Recursion Aug 2013 #26
Fumesucker Aug 2013 #39
rhett o rick Aug 2013 #65
tridim Aug 2013 #45
bobduca Aug 2013 #61
tridim Aug 2013 #62
bobduca Aug 2013 #63
rhett o rick Aug 2013 #66
burnodo Aug 2013 #6
RC Aug 2013 #60
Oilwellian Aug 2013 #7
Recursion Aug 2013 #8
Mr. David Aug 2013 #9
Recursion Aug 2013 #10
morningfog Aug 2013 #40
Recursion Aug 2013 #44
frylock Aug 2013 #67
Recursion Aug 2013 #72
Luminous Animal Aug 2013 #16
randome Aug 2013 #32
Fumesucker Aug 2013 #34
CountAllVotes Aug 2013 #76
davidn3600 Aug 2013 #13
millennialmax Aug 2013 #14
gvstn Aug 2013 #77
Th1onein Aug 2013 #78
millennialmax Aug 2013 #79
Th1onein Aug 2013 #80
Luminous Animal Aug 2013 #15
Cha Aug 2013 #17
Rex Aug 2013 #18
Safetykitten Aug 2013 #19
tridim Aug 2013 #47
frylock Aug 2013 #68
tridim Aug 2013 #69
frylock Aug 2013 #71
RainDog Aug 2013 #20
Coyotl Aug 2013 #21
B Calm Aug 2013 #25
davidpdx Aug 2013 #58
Fumesucker Aug 2013 #22
Recursion Aug 2013 #28
Fumesucker Aug 2013 #31
randome Aug 2013 #33
Fumesucker Aug 2013 #35
Recursion Aug 2013 #56
EOTE Aug 2013 #43
HiPointDem Aug 2013 #23
Wounded Bear Aug 2013 #24
orpupilofnature57 Aug 2013 #27
chervilant Aug 2013 #29
Recursion Aug 2013 #30
morningfog Aug 2013 #42
chervilant Aug 2013 #50
chervilant Aug 2013 #59
frylock Aug 2013 #70
Lee-Lee Aug 2013 #36
woo me with science Aug 2013 #37
JVS Aug 2013 #38
ProSense Aug 2013 #46
woo me with science Aug 2013 #53
ProSense Aug 2013 #54
woo me with science Aug 2013 #64
ProSense Aug 2013 #57
tridim Aug 2013 #49
bemildred Aug 2013 #41
tridim Aug 2013 #48
bemildred Aug 2013 #74
tridim Aug 2013 #75
Tippy Aug 2013 #51
MADem Aug 2013 #52
randome Aug 2013 #55
MADem Aug 2013 #73

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 10:43 PM

1. Well I hope he makes some of his recommendations retroactive.

We've too many lives lost to prison "life".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 10:49 PM

2. Yeah, Obama has used that "prioritization" line before. I don't believe a word Holder says.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:24 AM

11. "I dont believe a [fucking] word Holder says." It will be worse with Clinton.

Prepare for the revolution. Stock up on toilet paper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:16 PM

3. Hmmm...

Will be interesting to see how (or if) this plays out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:20 PM

4. More than a life sentence becomes redundant. Where else can they go?

They made sentences as long as they could go. So what to do now...?


--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #4)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:23 PM

5. Huh?

He's talking about reducing sentences

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:25 AM

12. Holder isnt a friend of the 99%. He is a corporate shill. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:24 AM

26. Oh, right, you live in a world with "good" or "evil" people

So, yeah, you probably do think that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #26)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 08:14 AM

39. I think most of us live in that world, we just draw the line in different places, different ways

I don't think Holder is any friend of the common man, he might do something for us by accident or maybe even on purpose if it doesn't conflict with the goals of the powerful but fight for us against the interests of the powerful? No, that's not going to happen.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #26)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:18 PM

65. If you disagree, that's not much of an argument. Holder's number one priority is to deny

medical marijuana patients their medicine. To fill our jails with marijuana users and dispensers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:11 AM

45. ...So just give up neo-DU. Don't fight for anything.

Rick has spoken.. The whole universe is falling, not just the sky.

Negativity is anti-progressive, and your shtick is fucking boring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #45)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 10:53 AM

61. Cutesy name calling is all you got

"neo-du"

Pretty rich coming from a neo-liberal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #61)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 10:55 AM

62. I'm a Democrat. Always have been, always will.

It's why I joined DEMOCRATIC Underground 12 years ago.

Why did you join?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #61)


Response to tridim (Reply #45)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 01:03 PM

66. Apparently you dont have anything to counter, so you attack me.

Do you agree that all the ad hominem attacks on Snowden are anti-progressive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:25 PM

6. "shortened sentences for minor drug offenses"

 

this is a new way of thinking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burnodo (Reply #6)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 10:47 AM

60. That makes room for more minor drug offenses. That way there are more people with criminal drug

 

records.

That makes more people unemployable at many jobs.
Always question anything they do, especially that that seems good on the surface. There is always an sinister, ulterior motive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:00 AM

7. Incredible

I guess teeny weeny baby steps is better than nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:01 AM

8. Huh?

Do you think small achievable steps aren't better than nothing? I've never understood that attitude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:03 AM

9. Holder needs to declare the War on Drugs a massive failure, and order pot smokers released from

 

prisons and jails immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. David (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:06 AM

10. Previous sentence reductions have been hard to get through the prison system

But hopefully with enough of a push.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 08:16 AM

40. What do you mean hard to get through the prison system?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #40)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:10 AM

44. I mean there have been previous sentencing reforms ...

... and the prison administrators have done everything in their power to avoid implementing them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #44)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:29 PM

67. perhaps a little something more than a sternly worded letter is in order..

let's say a $10,000/day fine for every day that the prison administrators are out of compliance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #67)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 04:05 PM

72. Because nothing is cut and dry

The guy who was in prison for running drugs has now hooked up with the Vice Lords and is suspected in the death of his cellmate, etc. Or the warden is making that up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr. David (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:47 AM

16. Not only pot smokers but all those arrested for possession. No matter what the drug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #16)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 07:21 AM

32. No. In rehab, maybe, but you don't simply turn drug addicts out on the street.


There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #32)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 07:26 AM

34. There's nicotine and alcohol addicts walking around all over America

In fact one of my favorite bloggers just last night admitted that he's an alcohol addict.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2013/08/09/i-think-im-done/

Iíve gone the distance and I think I am done. Just got back from a night on the town- had a couple scotches in the hotel bar, went to a nice restaurant and had dinner and couple more scotches, went and saw this amazing musician named Catfish Stephenson who played a bunch of J.J. Cale and was magnificent on the slide guitar, then went to a couple more places which meant a couple more scotches, and then finally said to hell with it and came back to the hotel at 1 am. I drank enough to kill most mortals, and I bet I could still drive and am not even drunk.

I think I am going to go to AA and if necessary, rehab. Iíve been a drunk since the first time I had a beer and got stoned with my buddy when I was thirteen years old, and I just canít do it any more. The first time I drank a few beers and felt that warm embrace as a teen, well, that was it. Itís all been about that since then, but Iím tired of being fat, Iím tired of being worried about my health all day until I have a drink and forget about shit. Iím just tired. I canít spend anymore time wondering if I am going to die of cirrhosis or die of throat cancer from cigars, cigarettes, and booze like Chris Hitchens. Itís really killing me.

I am a very high functioning alcoholic and have been for years because of my sheer willpower and determination to not make changes, but I knew this time was coming for years. Hell, I almost joined Dean Esmay a decade ago (Dean is a warblogger most of you have never even heard of, but I knew him quite well) when he quit. But I thought I had shit under control. Several years ago, in a drunken late night stupor, I even called Chuck Butcher late night and talked to him, but I didnít listen to him and I just kept on keeping on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #34)

Sat Aug 10, 2013, 11:49 AM

76. I am a very high functioning alcoholic

He still believes he can handle it.

Enough said right there.

Thanks for the post in any event and best of luck to whoever this "blogger" is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:35 AM

13. I'll believe it when I see it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:37 AM

14. Eric Holder is a damn fine AG. I'm glad he has seen the light on this particular subject. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to millennialmax (Reply #14)

Sat Aug 10, 2013, 11:50 AM

77. What?

He has no fight in him.

Nothing on Bush/Cheney's erosion of Constitutional rights. No one held accountable for the Banking mess. No real teeth on BP oil spill (make them clean it up until I feel safe eating shrimp/crabs from the gulf--about 20 years from now--at this pace).

He only goes forward with a case when he knows he can win with little opposition (See Snowden).

Several States have seen clear to acknowledge that gay marriage is a right but Holder hasn't challenged the ones that don't. Federal recognition should be the law of the land and he should sue any State that doesn't comply. Yes, Congress has to pass a GLBT law first but if Holder and Obama were out there telling us it was a scourge on our nation the last few years instead of meekly "moving forward" that law would have been passed with 68% of Americans approving.

Same with marijuana/drugs.

He has no fight in him when the other side has lawyers of their own, unless it is against whistle-blowing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to millennialmax (Reply #14)

Sat Aug 10, 2013, 03:14 PM

78. Anti-progressive stance there, millennialmax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Th1onein (Reply #78)

Sat Aug 10, 2013, 03:16 PM

79. I support the Obama administration's decisions. I don't care what label I lose or gain for that.

 

Nice try, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to millennialmax (Reply #79)

Sat Aug 10, 2013, 03:31 PM

80. Sure you do.

I think thou dost protest too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:46 AM

15. If drugs are going to continue to be illegal, possession should be a mere ticketable

offense. Though, in my opinion, 100% decriminalization is the ideal response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 12:47 AM

17. thanks Recursion!

Make it so, AG Holder!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 01:09 AM

18. He can stop the futile war on drugs.

nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 01:11 AM

19. Bigger rocks, smaller sledgehammers, no movie nights and pre-paid food cards from Citibank.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Safetykitten (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:17 AM

47. Holder is currently investigating BoA and JPM Chase for mortgage fraud, criminal activity.

You implication is BS. Holder is not the Neo-DU strawman you're convinced he is. You have been lied to.

JPMorgan Chase Faces Full-Court Press of Federal Investigations
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/jpmorgan-chase-faces-full-court-press-of-federal-investigations/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #47)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:31 PM

68. get back to us when anything more than the standard slap on the wrist is administered

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #68)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:32 PM

69. They have already been ordered to pay settlements to illegally foreclosed victims.

I received TWO settlement checks last month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #69)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:37 PM

71. anybody going to prison and doing hard time for breaking the law?

those settlements amount to you or I throwing a five-dollar bill in the trash. they reaped IMMENSE profits through their illegal activities. they'll just write off these settlements as another cost of doing business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 01:25 AM

20. do you know the current status on the Polis and Blumenauer bills?

They were introduced in Feb. 2013.

I'm glad to see that Congress and the AG office are attempting to bring some sanity back to the nation regarding the war on drugs. I hope Holder will also agree, as states have asked, to allow them to implement their cannabis laws without federal interference.

The BEST thing that could happen at this time, tho, is for Congress to vote to remove cannabis from the drug schedule/CSA and to provide a framework for taxation - which is what the Polis and Blumenauer bills would do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 01:50 AM

21. I believe it when they release the drug prisoners and restore voting rights

How many millions of votes stolen in the last 40 years??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #21)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:22 AM

25. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #21)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 10:11 AM

58. Most states do restore voting rights to felons

The problem is the ones that don't need to be changed either through state legislation or initiatives. 2 states voting while in prison, 13 allow it after release so that's 15. California, Colorado, Connecticut, and New York don't allow it if you are on Parole. Those would be the first four I'd go after. Beyond that you have 31 others which have tougher laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 05:06 AM

22. "Unintended consequences"?



Those consequences were absolutely intended right from the very beginning, in fact they were the entire purpose, what an amazingly disingenuous statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:37 AM

28. The history of the War on Drugs is much more complicated than either side wants to admit

And the sooner we can all acknowledge that, contrary to your belief, nobody wanted it to end up how it has, the better, IMO.

DAPCA was passed as our implementation of the Single Convention, which had its roots way back in the League of Nations. This has been a multi-generational fiasco pursued by many interests for many reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 07:04 AM

31. We all know the drug laws were passed because "those people" were thought to be using them

None of these laws were aimed at the elite, upper class white folks, since the end of Alcohol Prohibition, which came and went remarkably rapidly considering it took a Constitutional Amendment on both ends to do it and undo it. The politicians learned their lesson well with that one, don't fuck with the drugs of choice of upper class elite white folks.

Chinese, Hispanics, Blacks, Hippies, Gays, all unpopular minorities of one sort or another, all deliberately and purposely targeted in the Drug War. People, including politicians, didn't used to be so circumspect about putting forth their true motives as they are today, the hatred and desire to discriminate was quite open and aboveboard.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #31)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 07:23 AM

33. Then how do you explain that most other countries have similar prohibitions?


There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #33)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 07:30 AM

35. The US has bullied the entire world into it

I thought you knew the history of all this? The DEA operates all over the world.

By any rational measure cannabis is a safer and more benign drug all around than alcohol and yet it's illegal in every single country on the damn planet.

That did not happen by accident, every single government in the world is not that stupid.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #35)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:50 AM

56. The Single Convention had a lot of stakeholders and people pushing for it

I definitely wouldn't call it a US-only initiative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #28)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 08:55 AM

43. The War on Drugs turned out EXACTLY as wanted for quite a few people.

Do you REALLY think the racism inherent in the WoD is accidental? Do you REALLY think that the fact that the U.S. has the largest prison population in the world is an accident? I think the sooner citizens wake up and realize that these assholes DO NOT have our best interests in mind, the better.

Do you recall the Obama administration promising to take a laissez faire attitude toward pot in general? Do you recall the 5 years that followed where the DEA and DoJ proved just how full of shit he was? And now you're excited that Holder has once again promised what Obama promised before he became president? With expectations so low, how could one possibly ever be disappointed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 05:08 AM

23. The unintended consequences include an increase in the prevalence of drug use & an

 

increase in the trafficking of drugs.

or maybe it's not unintended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 05:19 AM

24. Cue the lobbyists from the Prison Industry...

They're the real drivers of the whole clusterfuck that is our national drug policy.

We need to start nationalizing the prisons again and get them out of the hands of the for profit assholes running it now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #24)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:29 AM

27. +1000 !!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:50 AM

29. This begs the question:

"Is this another distraction ploy?"

The United States has the most people in prison by far of any country in the world. With 5 percent of the worldís population, we have 25 percent of the worldís prisoners Ė 2.3 million criminals. China with a population 4 times our size is second with 1.6 million people in prison.


The penal system du jour -- another ginormous corporate ruse to profit from the misfortunes of the plebes, and Holder intends to change their profit margin? How likely is this, really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chervilant (Reply #29)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:58 AM

30. That's not what "begs the question" means

Though this is good proof that nothing is ever good enough to a certain contingent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #30)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 08:18 AM

42. This is not good enough.

It may end up being a step in the right direction, possibly, maybe, sometime in the future, but that is not good enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #30)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:29 AM

50. "...to a certain contingent."

Who exactly comprises this 'certain contingent' to which you refer?

Let me guess, those of us who are skeptical about Holder's initiative? Why, pray tell, is my concern grounds for lumping me into a 'certain contingent'?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #30)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 10:33 AM

59. Oh, and, speaking of distraction ploys:

Despite having "long been condemned by usage commentators as incorrect or sloppy", some authorities consider the use of "begs the question" as a way of saying "raises the question" or "evades the question" to be no longer mistaken because it has attained such wide usage.


I tell my students that language is a rich and enriching tool; alive and evolving throughout our history as a sentient species. I have my own set of made-up words, and repurposed words and phrases. I am clear about this with those who know me, or hear me lecture. I am glad that you chose to point out the controversy about "begs the question." Like "ain't" and "irregardless" and a plethora of other words (and phrases), it's an interesting example of our ever-changing language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #30)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 03:34 PM

70. a "certain contingent" is far more interested in action..

while another contingent is perfectly happy listening to the pretty words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 07:38 AM

36. I doubt he will have much control over "minor" drug offenses

Because, in 99% of cases, minor possession or distribution charges are state/local charges, not Federal.

About the only time a minor drug charge like simple possession ends up in Federal court is if it took place on Federal land- like if the Park Ranger catches you in the National Park smoking a joint.

Even in cases where Federal charges could be filed for a minor case when local authorities refer it the US Attorneys have zero interest- they only want big cases that help their careers.

So if it goes down like I expect, look for lots of talk, but very little real impact in the real world. And even less impact to minority populations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 07:41 AM

37. Oh boy. Time to use this post again:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #37)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 07:44 AM

38. It's a good point though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #37)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:13 AM

46. Time to post this again

Holder Urges Retroactivity of Fair Sentencing Act
http://prospect.org/article/holder-urges-retroactivity-fair-sentencing-act

NYT editorial: Sentencing Reform Starts to Pay Off
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023393947

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #46)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:37 AM

53. Wow, that's brazenly dishonest even for you,

to post that first article from 2011, when you know very well that Obama's justice department has reversed position entirely:



Holder Moves to Overturn Ruling That Would Apply Fair Sentencing Act Retroactively
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/trial-obama-admins-greatest-shame?page=0%2C1


Strangely, the Obama administration initially urged in federal courts across the country that the old discriminatory penalties should still be applied to those arrested but not yet sentenced at the time the law was passed. However, the administration reversed course after significant criticism, and the US supreme court held last year that the new, more "fair" sentences must be applied to those not yet sentenced.

But that case did not decide the fate of any of the thousands of people already sitting in prison because of what all agree is an unfair law. For those people Ė sentenced, in some cases, just days or weeks before the Fair Sentencing Act was signed Ė our society's acknowledgment that they remain in prison for no good reason may not help them at all Ė because the government did not care to reduce their penalties retroactively when it declared them unjust.

For several years, federal judges have done nothing to remedy this injustice; one famously concluded that the prisoners sentenced under the old law had simply "lost on a temporal roll of the cosmic dice". So, there are American citizens serving tens of thousands of years in prison because, according to all three branches of government, it's just their tough luck?

Apparently so, until two months ago. On 17 May 2013, the US court of appeals for the sixth circuit held that the new, "fair" sentences must be applied to all those previously sentenced under laws that everyone acknowledges were discriminatory. The two-judge majority opinion wrote forcefully (pdf) and with unusual candor about the history of unequal treatment under the old laws. The judges ordered that those sentenced under those laws were entitled to ask federal judges to reduce their sentences.

The Justice Department is now seeking to overturn that decision Ė which will be devastating news to many thousands like my original crack cocaine client. The Obama administration would surely condemn an oppressive foreign dictator's regime for the singular cruelty of declaring to its population that thousands of its citizens must continue to sit in prison for no good reason. The fact that few have even heard of the stunning position taken by President Obama is a sad reflection on how incurious mainstream US public opinion is about what underpins our mass incarceration society.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #53)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:46 AM

54. There you go calling someone "brazenly dishonest" when you clearly have no idea what you posted.

What you posted has nothing to do with the defined parameters of the Fair Sentencing Act, which is what the NYT editorial (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023393947) is about.

The FSA made the rule retroactive to a certain period. The court decision you posted states that it should be retroactive to all cases.

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) is actually only kind of fair. The passage of the 2010 law, which reduced the crack to powder mandatory minimum ratio in federal cocaine sentences from 100:1 to 18:1, was a significant step in the direction of fairness. While we applaud this change, we also look forward to the day when Congress adopts the actually fair ratio of 1:1. In the meantime, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari on two FSA cases, Hill v. United States and Dorsey v. United States, both out of the Seventh Circuit. In these cases, the Court will decide whether people whose offense predates the enactment of the FSA but who were sentenced afterwards should be sentenced based on the old 100:1 ratio or the new 18:1 ratio. If the Court rules the wrong way, a sizeable class of people will be excluded from Congressí attempt to restore fairness and racial neutrality to federal cocaine sentencing, and the kind-of-Fair Sentencing Act will become even less fair.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/will-supreme-court-render-fair-sentencing-act-less-fair



Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the Fair Sentencing Act applies to people convicted before the act was passed but sentenced afterwards. The Fair Sentencing Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2010, was designed to reduce the disparity between the mandatory minimums for crack cocaine offenses as compared to powder cocaine offenses.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/22/503881/supreme-court-expands-impact-of-fair-sentencing-act/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #54)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 11:03 AM

64. Obama's Justice Department is appealing to keep people in prison

under law that they themselves have stated is unfair. You are deliberately avoiding the point and the Justice Department's own, current actions.

Let me repeat that: The US is appealing the decision for retroactive correction of unfair sentencing. That is the difference between pretty rhetoric and actions.


U.S. vs. Blewett is the Obama Justice Departmentís Greatest Shame
http://njeja.org/2013/07/24/u-s-vs-blewett-is-the-obama-justice-departments-greatest-shame/

Sixth Circuit Crack Retroactivity Ruling Appealed
http://www.famm.org/newsandinformation/PressReleases/SixthCircuitCrackRetroactivityRulingAppealed.aspx

Holder Moves To Overturn Ruling That Would Apply Fair Sentencing Act Retroactively
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023334909



You really, really ought to be ashamed. I will not engage with you further on this thread out of principle. It is important, however, to point out the blatant dishonesty of the relentless administration spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #53)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:50 AM

57. The funny thing is that

you're posting this when the OP indicates that Holder is moving toward more reforms, and after responding to the OP with this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023431740#post37

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #37)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:23 AM

49. Woo me with constant negativity...

Feel free to show us the Obama approved pipeline that only exists in your woo-head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 08:18 AM

41. Holder is part of the problem, he's not likely to fix it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #41)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:19 AM

48. And when he does fix it, you and the rest of Neo-DU will deny it ever happened.

Tell me something I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tridim (Reply #48)

Sat Aug 10, 2013, 10:00 AM

74. Except he will never fix it, because he thinks the Drug War is a good thing.

Perhaps a bit excessive, but quite right in principle, the public has no right to decide for itself about such things, that's up to The Owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #74)

Sat Aug 10, 2013, 11:35 AM

75. He is specifically addressing major problems with the drug war.

Everything Holder has said publicly indicates that he thinks the drug war is inherently flawed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:33 AM

51. I hope and pray he has a workable doable plan

Something needs to be done CCA will own the USA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:34 AM

52. Weed for everyone? It'll make Big Tobacco happy--they've got all the cigarette making infrastructure

in place already.....

Sanjay -- who almost was the Surgeon General, if we remember -- has weighed in on the topic.

It's only a matter of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #52)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 09:48 AM

55. Welcome back, Joe!



You should never stop having childhood dreams.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #55)

Fri Aug 9, 2013, 06:47 PM

73. Ha hahahaha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!!!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread