Too many in prison for far too long: US attorney

[Jai]

Too many in prison for far too long: US attorney

WASHINGTON: -- Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday announced changes in federal drug prosecution intended to reduce prison populations, save money and remove built-in bias against poor minority defendants.

Holder declared the current system "broken" and "far from sustainable," in a speech in San Francisco to the American Bar Association.
Holder cited the soaring prison population, which since 1980 has increased 800 per cent while US population increased only by about one-third.
http://nationmultimedia.com The Nation

[jackspratt]

What has bought this subject up at this time - albeit that it is long overdue?

A conspiratist might suggest it is an attempt to divert attention from the wider question of NSA (and other) spying - in which Holder (and his DoJ) is right in the centre of.

Interesting to see what unfolds over the next few days.

[Jai]

The USA has 4.5% of the worlds population...... it also has 25% of the worlds prisoners. These astounding figures and a lot more are the bases of the Documentary that Brad Pitt Funded "The House I live In"
http://www.thehouseilivein.org/ It has caused such a storm in America and in no small part contributed to this move to change the laws, that do not allow a Judge to determine what a proper sentence should be.
I would urge everyone to try to view it.

"In the past 40 years, the War on Drugs has accounted for 45 million arrests, made America the world's largest jailer, and destroyed impoverished communities at home and abroad.
The war on drugs has never been about drugs IMDB.com

When you look at those figures in this Doco and then at the tiny percentage of those 45 Million who have actually been the dealers, not the Mules and users--- you will know why we lost the war on drugs.

[WBU ALUM]

and remove built-in bias against poor minority defendants.

I wonder, specifically, what built-in bias Holder is talking about.

And BTW, most drug laws are state laws. Holder has no control over that.

[pienmash]

47% of all prisoners in US are on some sort of drug related crime/charge....... predominently black or Hispanic ... now theres a couple of facts to chew on ... another fact Holder is a total plonker .

[WBU ALUM]

47% of all prisoners in US are on some sort of drug related crime/charge.......

I wonder what percentage of them were arrested on other charges that were prosecuted WITH the drug-related crimes/charges? Not uncommon to have a cornucopia of criminal issues when arrests are made.

predominently black or Hispanic ... now theres a couple of facts to chew on ... another fact Holder is a total plonker .

During the course of my career connected to law enforcement, I never worked with one colleague who brought race into the picture other than the description of suspects. Beyond that, it didn't matter. We were looking for the law-breaking perp. Period.

I've got better names for Holder, pienmash. I don't call it the INjustice Department for nothing.

[Jai]

Wow-----Did this ever go off track..................


//Mod. Note: Thread cleaned up a bit ...//

[Bandung_Dero]

Too many in prison for far too long: US attorney

WTF, **** the hand wringers and social engineers OFF and make prisons EXACTLY what they are meant to be - WORLD WIDE!!

This day and age they are nothing but friggen hotels. There is NO deterrent no matter what the crime

[parrot]

Mod Note: The subject is "Too Many in Prison for Far Too Long: US Attorney"

Off topic comments will be removed.

[pienmash]

Gotta agree BDD ... most of the prisons are like hotels albeit full overcrowded hotels , TVs , pool tables quality food ,,,, the days of COOL HAND LUKE are no more ... in the UK asylum seekers are committing crimes as soon as they land to get into a cusshee prison .. porridge ,,more like a holiday camp ...

IMO releasing or going soft on criminals in the US will lead to MORE crimes being committed on street level .. as the deterent weakens its gonna get messy.

mash

[jackspratt]

It seems there is a push (on UM) to bring back the chain gangs.

Shame Australia is already settled - a bit of deportation never hurt any handkerchief or loaf of bread thief. =D>

After all, such methods were so very effective 200+ years ago - why wouldn't they work now?

[Jai]

The growth of the prison population in the USA, goes hand in hand with the construction of private prisons. Does crime pay ? --yes CXW one of the larger Prison companies, is forecasting a 4% dividend this year.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=CXW and some municipalities have opened the prisons to private companies with a guaranteed occupancy rate of 90%. Any short fall is to be made up by the municipality.

Forbes Magazine had this to say on where to place your investments----
First, there is a lot of money in incarcerating people … and it is hard to take that money away.
Congressmen have promised and delivered thousands of jobs to their respective districts by
opening prisons.The most recent one, a women’s prison in Aliceville, AL cost over $250 million
and is hauling women in to fill its cells. Another men’s prison opened recently in Berlin, NH,
amid boasts of job fairs and prison tours. Fewer prisoners would mean fewer people watching,
feeding and counseling prisoners … fewer jobs. It is not like one can re-purpose a prison into,
say, daycare or subsidized housing. The private sector is cashing in on prison as well, with private
prison company The GEO Group announcing just last week, “strong quarterly earnings”, along with
announcing an expected increase in its quarterly dividends. That does not sound like a company
expecting a downturn.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo ... r=yahootix

Of course sometimes the rapid growth of the new private prisons can lead to a short fall of occupants, but this to can be solved in the same age old way.
"Judge Ciavarella is accused of taking nearly $1 million in kickbacks from owners of private detention centers in exchange for placing juvenile defendants at their facilities, for up to 2 years often for minor crimes. Ciavarella claims that the payment he received from a developer of the PA Child Care facility was legal and denies that he ever incarcerated kids for money. Some of the kids he ordered locked up were as young as 10.
"The numbers of children going into placement in Luzerne County tended to be two to three times higher than in other counties," said Marsha Levick, deputy director
http://abcnews.go.com/US/mark-ciavarell ... d=12965182

[fdimike]

WBU

"And BTW, most drug laws are state laws. Holder has no control over that"

True but the feds have gotten into the game big time under the provissions of the Interstate Transportation Act. Up until my retirment in 2004 nearly all major drug busts in Florida were handled by the federal courts. In addition to DEA driven busts in the state, county deputies working for the DEA but being paid by the state also accounted for a large number of drug cases being brought before the federal courts. The feds ignored earlier warnings not to get involved as it would swell their prison populations to the breaking point. Federal judges were constantly complaining in private about mandatory sentencing guidelines which essentially eliminated the judge from the sentencing phase curtailing their ability to apply a fair sentence taking into consideration a large number of extenuating circumstances.

[WBU ALUM]

WBU

"And BTW, most drug laws are state laws. Holder has no control over that"

True but the feds have gotten into the game big time under the provissions of the Interstate Transportation Act. Up until my retirment in 2004 nearly all major drug busts in Florida were handled by the federal courts. In addition to DEA driven busts in the state, county deputies working for the DEA but being paid by the state also accounted for a large number of drug cases being brought before the federal courts. The feds ignored earlier warnings not to get involved as it would swell their prison populations to the breaking point. Federal judges were constantly complaining in private about mandatory sentencing guidelines which essentially eliminated the judge from the sentencing phase curtailing their ability to apply a fair sentence taking into consideration a large number of extenuating circumstances.

That is all true if the feds are involved in the case. No question about it. They determine where the case will be tried ... federal court or state district court. For example, bank robbery is a federal crime. The FBI is involved from jump, but in Louisiana they always opted to have the perps tried in state district court because armed robbery in Louisiana was 5 to 99 years. The federal sentence at the time for bank robbery was only 20 years. The feds wanted bank robbers put away. They went with the state charge and state district courts. In fact, many states have tougher armed robbery sentences that the federal bank robbery statutes.

Holder and the feds aren't involved in low-level drug prosecutions at the local and state levels. Holder can't change the law or determine how people are tried in state courts if the feds aren't involved in the cases. He only has control over federal prosecutions. As for the federal drug crimes, Holder and the feds involve themselves with the drug kingpins. The biggest of the big! Holder is going to slack off on them because they're minorities? The kingpins?

All of that said, he can do what he has done with immigration laws and voter ID laws. He can file suits against the states to change their laws and take it to the federal courts. I don't put anything past him. He's about chaos.

[fdimike]

"As for the federal drug crimes, Holder and the feds involve themselves with the drug kingpins. The biggest of the big! Holder is going to slack off on them because they're minorities? The kingpins?"

The judge now has little leeway when applying a sentence because he/she has to stick to the federal Sentencing Guidelines which were developed to standardize sentencing throughout the federal court system. The problem with that is it takes the judge out of the picture and doesn't allow for extenuating circumstances such as age of the defendant or the circumstances surrounding the arrest. We had lots of bad cases being filed by overzealous law enforcement people resulting in long sentences for minor offenses/involvement. The judge had little leeway when it came to sentencing hence you had people being sent to prison for long periods for relatively low level participation in the crime. I don't think the intention is to slack off on the kingpins but to make the system work better (I hope).

[RLTrader]

The Key word in Holder's statement, "Some" cases. I read that as "White".

Holder is not my favorite (Just for Lil Red) B̶o̶y̶ person in the Obama admin. Think the 2 should be cell mates.

[WBU ALUM]

"As for the federal drug crimes, Holder and the feds involve themselves with the drug kingpins. The biggest of the big! Holder is going to slack off on them because they're minorities? The kingpins?"

The judge now has little leeway when applying a sentence because he/she has to stick to the federal Sentencing Guidelines which were developed to standardize sentencing throughout the federal court system. The problem with that is it takes the judge out of the picture and doesn't allow for extenuating circumstances such as age of the defendant or the circumstances surrounding the arrest. We had lots of bad cases being filed by overzealous law enforcement people resulting in long sentences for minor offenses/involvement. The judge had little leeway when it came to sentencing hence you had people being sent to prison for long periods for relatively low level participation in the crime. I don't think the intention is to slack off on the kingpins but to make the system work better (I hope).

All of what you say sometimes occurs, but Holder is the zinger in this equation. He is never specific about the chaos that he orchestrates until the cats are out of the bag.

Some judges I've seen need strict sentencing guidelines.

Low-level participation could be reduced to a conspiracy charge by the feds, which would be half of the sentence for committing the actual crime. DOJ already has the power to seek those kinds of charges and could even offer them in plea bargains. I'd hate to see judges given too much leeway.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

It seems there is a push (on UM) to bring back the chain gangs.

Shame Australia is already settled - a bit of deportation never hurt any handkerchief or loaf of bread thief. =D>

After all, such methods were so very effective 200+ years ago - why wouldn't they work now?

What is the stand of Messrs. Rudd and Abbott on this issue? We know how they feel about so-called illegal refugees who they are sending to Papua New Guinea and that other place. Are these people chained? Nevertheless, it is an interesting adaptation of the old British policy of sending undesirables to Queensland, New South Wales and so on.

[fdimike]

Fully agree that some judges do need strict sentencing guidelines. However, I think what we'll see is a modification of the Federal Guidelines to allow the judge more leeway during sentencing.

"Low-level participation could be reduced to a conspiracy charge by the feds, which would be half of the sentence for committing the actual crime. DOJ already has the power to seek those kinds of charges and could even offer them in plea bargains."

The problem is the words "could be reduced". Most Assistant US Attorneys (AUSA) are not interested in that aspect. They'll have to explain their action to seek a lesser charge to their boss so it's just much easier not to bother. The judge now has his/her hands tied and cannot offer a lower sentence than that provided by the guidelines even if he/she feels that the sentence does not fit the crime. This leaves it to the appeals process, but even that has limits because you cannot appeal the sentence unless the judge exceeds the guidelines or there is some incorrect procedure that occurs. ie. the prosecutor puts on a witness under an assumed name without informing the court to ask for permission to do so.
The American Bar Association, & The National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys have been lobbying long & hard for some modification to the guidelines due to their inequalities. Plea bargaining certainly does occur but it is not always able to lower a sentence to any substantial degree. Additionally, you've got to get the AUSA to agree to a plea but the judge is not bound by the plea bargain because it is between the defendant and the AUSA. Realize that most all criminal cases are plea bargained and never reach trial because the penalities can be extremely harsh ( life in federal parlance means exactly that ). Couple all this with the unrealistic rules of evidence in federal court and one will quickly see the odds of winning in federal court are quite slim.
As someone who worked in the "system" for 20 years I look forward to some sort of modification of the guidelines.

[WBU ALUM]

The problem is the words "could be reduced". Most Assistant US Attorneys (AUSA) are not interested in that aspect. They'll have to explain their action to seek a lesser charge to their boss so it's just much easier not to bother.

Except that Holder is their boss. If Holder wants it, there should not be very many speed bumps in the road. This is something that Holder can actually control internally.

I just hope the new statutes, which must past muster in Congress, don't take this to a bleeding-heart extreme. Congress specializes in extremes and unintended consequences.