Breaking story today is that Holder/Obama are laying the groundwork right now for releasing thousands of convicted drug felons early from prison.

Liberal sites are speculating it will happen after the mid term elections so that it doesn't become a Willie Horton problem for the party this fall.

Estimates are that some 7,000 to 8,000 prisoners still serving time for drug sentences under the pre-2010 law would already have completed their maximum sentences if they had been convicted under the new law.

Obama/Holder wants to let all those prisoners free.

This is the most lawless regime in U.S history. The political fallout will be stunning if Obama just opens up the prisons like this and let's everyone go.

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/legaltimes/home/id=1202651906701/Justice%20Department%20Expands%20Clemency%20for%20Drug%20Offenders?mcode=1202615034968&curindex=0&back=NLJ&slreturn=20140321173103

It will happen before the election; they win elections based on a couple million illegal votes.

for true justice our first African American President is acting to undue the disparity of sentencing for offenses involving crack to those involving cocaine.

If any of these people are in prison for smoking the green, then I'm OK with them being let out.

So even after the new law, there's still only a few thousand people that are affected?

I've always been HIGHLY suspicious of claims hundreds of thousands are serving time just because of marijuana.

these are non violent offenders no?

isadore;1607711 wrote:for true justice our first African American President is acting to undue the disparity of sentencing for offenses involving crack to those involving cocaine.

I would rather the sentencing be increased for others having received a lighter sentence to equalize the "disparity".

Non-violent drug offenders should not be serving time in prison. Let them all out.

They should according to the current law. Once the law is changed, then the shouldn't.

Con_Alma;1607921 wrote:I would rather the sentencing be increased for others having received a lighter sentence to equalize the "disparity".

why?

The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted Thursday to reduce sentencing guidelines that could shorten prison stays for about 70% of federal drug trafficking defendants, backing a proposal supported by the Justice Department and some conservative lawmakers.The unanimous vote by the commission sets in motion a change in the formula used to determine sentences for federal drug offenders. If Congress doesn't object to the change, it would go into effect on November 1.
"This modest reduction in drug penalties is an important step toward reducing the problem of prison overcrowding at the federal level in a proportionate and fair manner," said Judge Patti B. Saris, chair of the commission. "Reducing the federal prison population has become urgent, with that population almost three times where it was in 1991."

http://www.gilt.com/sale/men?modal_click=0&utm_medium=paid%20display&utm_source=Turner&utm_campaign=GS:Manisplay:Turner

isadore;1607970 wrote:why?

It would rid the disparity and punish according to the law.

Con_Alma;1607972 wrote:It would rid the disparity and punish according to the law.

violate the 5th and 8th Amendments

Yes, let's try to solve the problem of prison overcrowding by releasing drug trafficking prisoners, to the detriment of society. Anything to lighten the load of the criminals, while increasing the load on the rest of society. More brilliance from the regime.

isadore;1607983 wrote:violate the 5th and 8th Amendments

Punishing all the same according to the law violates the 5th and 8th amendment???

QuakerOats;1607993 wrote:Yes, let's try to solve the problem of prison overcrowding by releasing drug trafficking prisoners, to the detriment of society. Anything to lighten the load of the criminals, while increasing the load on the rest of society. More brilliance from the regime.

It is silly isn't it.

From my understanding, those to be released are from non-violent drug crimes, so merely possession of say crack or cocaine. A large portion are probably low-level dealers who have served their time.

My father in law worked at SOCF for 25 years and I asked him about it. He is alright with it if done rightly.
The drug laws in the past have been just insane and really were overkill for the crimes.
I mean possession of crack had more jail time than other more series crimes.

I read Isadore's post above that indicates "70% of federal drug trafficking defendants" ...... to me that is a lot different from small time users.

If we can turn a users life around with rehab, great; but I have no sympathy for the peddlers given the destruction they wreak on society as a whole. Maybe the regime thinks otherwise, for their own selfish reasons.

Con_Alma;1607972 wrote:It would rid the disparity and punish according to the law.

no, just cause an increased injustice

Con_Alma;1607995 wrote:Punishing all the same according to the law violates the 5th and 8th amendment???

increasing the penalty deprives them of due process and inflicts cruel and unusual punishment.

QuakerOats;1608097 wrote:I read Isadore's post above that indicates "70% of federal drug trafficking defendants" ...... to me that is a lot different from small time users.

If we can turn a users life around with rehab, great; but I have no sympathy for the peddlers given the destruction they wreak on society as a whole. Maybe the regime thinks otherwise, for their own selfish reasons.

yeah federally, those aren't small time users or even dealers. most feds wont even touch a crook if he isn't moving pounds or kilos of drugs. and does being "non violent" mean they didn't personally partake in violence but could have lead an organization that did use violence?

isadore;1608175 wrote:increasing the penalty deprives them of due process and inflicts cruel and unusual punishment.

Why would you make the assumption that no due process would exist??

Penalties are imposed after due process and the current punishments in place are hardly cruel and unusual. In fact, they appear to be very usual considering the number of people that have realized such punishment.

It's not an increase in penalty according to the law but rather simply carrying out the level of punishment that's already provided for....equally....for all criminals.

Con_Alma;1608205 wrote:Why would you make the assumption that no due process would exist??

Penalties are imposed after due process and the current punishments in place are hardly cruel and unusual. In fact, they appear to be very usual considering the number of people that have realized such punishment.

It's not an increase in penalty according to the law but rather simply carrying out the level of punishment that's already provided for....equally....for all criminals.

Con_Alma wrote: I would rather the sentencing be increased for others having received a lighter sentence to equalize the "disparity".

No the punishments were not aligned with the comparative seriousness of the offenses.

isadore;1608239 wrote:No the punishments were not aligned with the comparative seriousness of the offenses.

My suggestion had no greater punishment than the current laws. Until the law changes the disparity in sentencing can easily be addressed within the current guidelines of the law. A judge isn't going to sentence outside of the current law.

Due process would still exist.

Con_Alma;1608244 wrote:My suggestion had no greater punishment than the current laws. Until the law changes the disparity in sentencing can easily be addressed within the current guidelines of the law. A judge isn't going to sentence outside of the current law.

Due process would still exist.

as an increasing consensus shows the drug penalties are draconian and need adjusted toward the lesser range of the sentences.