Con_Alma;1608611 wrote:It's not an "oversentence" according to the law. It may be according to your opinion. Work to get the law changed.

It eliminates the injustice of disparity of sentences and doesn't violate the Constitutional Amendments like you previously stated.

It is the position held by judges, doj and our political leaders, t growing consensus.
Disparate sentencing for Crack convictions violates due process clause of the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] amendment. Your plan to increase prison sentences leads to overcrowding which is cruel and unusual punishment.

isadore;1608615 wrote:It is the position held by judges, doj and our political leaders, t growing consensus.
Disparate sentencing for Crack convictions violates due process clause of the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] amendment. Your plan to increase prison sentences leads to overcrowding which is cruel and unusual punishment.

I can't speak from our judges, DOJ and political leaders.

I have provided by opinion regarding disparity in sentences. With such elimination there would not be a due process violation. Such sentences would not be unusual seeing how they are already in place and have been applied. Being in isn't cruel it's punishment. If there's a an instance wherreby it's believed to be cruel, I'd would hope an attorney would take a such a marquee case and argue it.

isadore;1608606 wrote:gosh a ruddies lets take an injustice and add to it. It does not eliminate the suffering of those oversentenced and then worsens the situation by adding to the overcrowding in the prisons.

"oversentenced" ......................hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa; hilarious.


Maybe the guilty should have stuck with powder instead of crack, or were they too stupid to know they were going to be 'oversentenced'?

If the guilty don't like over-crowded prisons, then they shouldn't commit crimes against society. Wow, novel idea. And who decided the prisons were over-crowded; where the hell did that panty-ass excuse come from ..........no doubt the liberal trial bar and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Being in jail isn't supposed to be an enjoyable experience, but apparently it is otherwise they wouldn't have so many members.

Con_Alma;1608626 wrote:I can't speak from our judges, DOJ and political leaders.

I have provided by opinion regarding disparity in sentences. With such elimination there would not be a due process violation. Such sentences would not be unusual seeing how they are already in place and have been applied. Being in isn't cruel it's punishment. If there's a an instance wherreby it's believed to be cruel, I'd would hope an attorney would take a such a marquee case and argue it.

I can speak for them and they see those sentences as wasteful of taxpayer funds and abusive for those incarcerated for those offenses.
The sentences for crack offenses were disparately cruel and far from providing due process or equal protection under the law.

QuakerOats;1608741 wrote:"oversentenced" ......................hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa; hilarious.


Maybe the guilty should have stuck with powder instead of crack, or were they too stupid to know they were going to be 'oversentenced'?

If the guilty don't like over-crowded prisons, then they shouldn't commit crimes against society. Wow, novel idea. And who decided the prisons were over-crowded; where the hell did that panty-ass excuse come from ..........no doubt the liberal trial bar and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Being in jail isn't supposed to be an enjoyable experience, but apparently it is otherwise they wouldn't have so many members.

gosh a ruddies hardly a surprise you would favor cocaine users and sellers. Keeping them in circulation while the black, brown and poor are sent off for extended terms in prison.

I see Gov. Cuomo has announced a new program for inmates to receive an associate or bachelor's degree over 2-3 years.

I mean, Isadore is always droning on about getting a free college education!

gut;1608870 wrote:I see Gov. Cuomo has announced a new program for inmates to receive an associate or bachelor's degree over 2-3 years.

I mean, Isadore is always droning on about getting a free college education!

now to guarantee it for all Americans

isadore;1608861 wrote:I can speak for them and they see those sentences as wasteful of taxpayer funds and abusive for those incarcerated for those offenses.
The sentences for crack offenses were disparately cruel and far from providing due process or equal protection under the law.

If our "political leaders" felt that way, they have the power to change it. They haven't.

isadore;1608868 wrote:gosh a ruddies hardly a surprise you would favor cocaine users and sellers. Keeping them in circulation while the black, brown and poor are sent off for extended terms in prison.

Apparently you believe the black, brown and poor are incapable of either differentiating between law breaking and law abiding, or between powder and crack. Why do you believe that?

Con_Alma;1608873 wrote:If our "political leaders" felt that way, they have the power to change it. They haven't.

they have begun


"The Justice Department moved Wednesday to significantly expand the number of people eligible for clemency, issuing new guidelines allowing certain prisoners who already have served at least 10 years behind bars to apply for release.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/23/clemency-after-10-years-in-prison-doj-announcing-overhaul/
The initiative is part of a broader Obama administration effort to ease sentences for nonviolent drug offenders"

If the inmmate has served 10 years, been clean inside, had a non-violent crime, he should be be allowed to apply for clemency.

Makes sense to me. Prisons are too crowded anyways, and the original drug laws were way too strict and non-proportional in comparison to other drug crimes.

isadore;1608879 wrote:they have begun


"The Justice Department moved Wednesday to significantly expand the number of people eligible for clemency, issuing new guidelines allowing certain prisoners who already have served at least 10 years behind bars to apply for release.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/23/clemency-after-10-years-in-prison-doj-announcing-overhaul/
The initiative is part of a broader Obama administration effort to ease sentences for nonviolent drug offenders"

Then there's no issue! ...except for the concerns over disparity in sentencing.....which was what my comments have been about. Such sentence easing doesn't see to assure that the disparity concerns are no longer present.

If the maximum penalty going forward for such crimes will be 10 years, we should make it 10 years for all...mandatory.

Con_Alma;1608888 wrote:Then there's no issue! ...except for the concerns over disparity in sentencing.....which was what my comments have been about. Such sentence easing doesn't see to assure that the disparity concerns are no longer present.

If the maximum penalty going forward for such crimes will be 10 years, we should make it 10 years for all...mandatory.

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_c...Display:Turner

Gblock;1608575 wrote:i just laugh at the those that are so self-righteous. con alma you werent self taught. all this wisdom you have you didnt just pick up a book at 6 years old and learn all this wisdom that you have. someone taught it to you. many people dont have that opportunity. giving someone 40 years for a non-violent crime seems excessive.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-plans-clemency-for-hundreds-of-drug-offenders--162714911.html

does this woman really need 30 years for example?

I mean look at the cost to the tax payers. 30 years X $25000 or a so a year is $750000 bucks. Surely we could educate and train someone to be reintegrated to society for less

That was also her third time being arrested.

justincredible;1608599 wrote:Decriminalize all drugs and take the power/money away from the cartels/gangs. End the drug war and take the drug market "above ground" and watch drug related violence drop.

Prohibition does not work. Look at the 18th amendment for proof.

how does that take the power away? it just makes what they do legal. The demand will still be there, they will continue to profit and fund violent organizations across the world. Organized crime just didn't disappear when alcohol was legalized, they just reorganized. the mafia had no problem in the 60s/70s/80s operating by the use of intimidation. why would the cartels just pack up too.

isadore;1608890 wrote: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_c...Display:Turner

Then there's no issue! ...except for the concerns over disparity in sentencing.....which was what my comments have been about. Such sentence easing doesn't see to assure that the disparity concerns are no longer present.

If the maximum penalty going forward for such crimes will be 10 years, we should make it 10 years for all...mandatory.

why?

isadore;1609141 wrote:why?

It would eliminate the disparity in sentencing.

Con_Alma;1609202 wrote:It would eliminate the disparity in sentencing.

sentencing everyone to ten years to would be cruel and unusual punishment to some of the lesser violators.

If the range provided to judges on certain offenses is available to be applied to convicted individuals, it is at the discretion to sentence them all at whatever the judge deems appropriate. Sentencing them all at the same level of the maximum would reduce the disparity in sentencing. It's not legally determine to be cruel and unusual if it has been reduced recently after consideration and is being afforded to the judges for sentencing.

obviously automatic maximum mandatory sentences without consideration to mitigation have been roundly criticized and seen as cruel and unusual.

isadore;1609220 wrote:obviously automatic maximum mandatory sentences without consideration to mitigation have been roundly criticized and seen as cruel and unusual.

...since lowering the maximum???? It's not obvious that the recent efforts to lower maximum have been followed by criticism of applying all to said maximum. Has anyone even discussed all people being sentenced to the maximum since this effort to lower them? If so, where? If not, how could it have been criticised already.

The mitigrating circumstances are the massive concersn expressed to the disparity in sentencing. Sentencing everyone to the maximum solves it.

Con_Alma;1609226 wrote:...since lowering the maximum???? It's not obvious that the recent efforts to lower maximum have been followed by criticism of applying all to said maximum. Has anyone even discussed all people being sentenced to the maximum since this effort to lower them? If so, where? If not, how could it have been criticised already.

The mitigrating circumstances are the massive concersn expressed to the disparity in sentencing. Sentencing everyone to the maximum solves it.

forcing judges to give sentences without considering mitigation is and has been a continuing criticism of the legal system as applied to drug offenders.

You're assuming things.

I haven't stated judges should be forced to do anything. Lol It wouldn't be "automatic". Lol It's what I have stated I would prefer. Sentencing disparity is in and of itself a mitigating circumstance that surrounds all drug sentences. There's really no way for you to know that applying maximum senteces to all people with the recent lower sentences proposed, as an effort to address sentencingn disparity has been discussed as deemed as cruel and unusual punishment.

Con_Alma;1609239 wrote:You're assuming things.

I haven't stated judges should be forced to do anything. Lol It wouldn't be "automatic". Lol It's what I have stated I would prefer. Sentencing disparity is in and of itself a mitigating circumstance that surrounds all drug sentences. There's really no way for you to know that applying maximum senteces to all people with the recent lower sentences proposed, as an effort to address sentencingn disparity has been discussed as deemed as cruel and unusual punishment.

No allowance for mitigation.

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