'Mandatory minimum' sentences to end for many drug offenders

[Jacob2899]

Atty. Gen. Eric Holder plans to announce a federal policy shift to reduce penalties for low-level, nonviolent offenders and to ease prison overcrowding.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holder-crime-20130812,0,464603.story

We don't have enough room for all the criminals in prison, so we'll just let them out on the streets.

[Iowa #1603]

The Federal Government does not have "Mandatory Minimum" sentencing.

Convicted Federal prisoners are sentenced to a set number of months of confinement and sent to prison. There is no parole in the federal system so that sentence becomes the length of time the individual will be in prison

[SteelyBuns]

I'm all about getting people the help they need if they can't physically break their habit or not throwing someone in jail for smoking a little bit of weed. Where they lose me, however, is this...

The change responds to a major goal of civil rights groups, which say long prison sentences have disproportionately hurt low-income and minority communities.

So much for blind justice. Now it's racist for criminals to get thrown in jail? I don't care how much money you make, I don't care what you look like or where you're from. You're braking the law. Man up, face the consequences.

[XD4ME]

The way I see it is long sentences give drug users a chance to kick their habit in a setting where they will not have (easy) access to dope. Throw in a treatment program while they are locked up and it is probably the best chance they have of getting clean. Catch, release, and hope for the best just doesn't make any logical sense.

I have yet to see a sentence handed down in my area I thought was too severe, it is nearly always the opposite.

[HatTrick5oh]

How often does the fed govt prosecute drug Users? There is no treatment for drug dealers, they are business men.

[PhilipCal]

Eric Holder?? Why is ANYBODY surprised?

[PhilipCal]

I'm all about getting people the help they need if they can't physically break their habit or not throwing someone in jail for smoking a little bit of weed. Where they lose me, however, is this...



So much for blind justice. Now it's racist for criminals to get thrown in jail? I don't care how much money you make, I don't care what you look like or where you're from. You're braking the law. Man up, face the consequences.

Poverty Pimps in Action.

[zigziggityzoo]

Personally, I'd rather see mandatory sentencing go away.

To me, it's the legislature that's trying to do the judges' jobs for them. It really isn't one size fits all. The punk kid who got caught smoking pot for the first time at a house party is different than the toothless bag lady caught cooking meth in a pop bottle, is different from joe bank robber strung out on heroin.

Let the judge adjudicate fairly based upon the facts presented.

[Firebug]

Personally, I'd rather see mandatory sentencing go away.

To me, it's the legislature that's trying to do the judges' jobs for them. It really isn't one size fits all. The punk kid who got caught smoking pot for the first time at a house party is different than the toothless bag lady caught cooking meth in a pop bottle, is different from joe bank robber strung out on heroin.

Let the judge adjudicate fairly based upon the facts presented.

This topic is about sentencing for Federal Crimes. I am really sure that the punk kid caught smoking pot for the first time at a house party is not finding himself in a Federal court facing Federal time in Federal prison.

FB

[ateamer]

We have mandatory sentencing because of limpwristed judges handing out hugs instead of prison sentences.

And in what state or federal district are judges sending teenagers to prison for smoking marijuana at a party? For that matter, where are they even giving them fines that cost more than a speeding ticket?

[Iowa #1603]

Mandatory Minimum sentencing was instituted because the POPULACE demanded "Get though on Crime"

Legislatures enacted minimum sentencing in order to make their constituents happy by showing that they WERE tough on crime.

The one thing they failed to do was fund the extra prison cells needed to keep the thugs in prison.


The Federal Government Chose to go with "Truth in Sentencing" where they made guidelines for nearly every crime and/or X number of months for X amount of contraband . THEN they abolished parole so the guilty party was going to do the amount of time he/she was sentenced to by the guidelines.

The building of Federal Prisons has been on going since the implementation of that policy.

[btfp]

Get tough on crime does notwork all the time. Having an ounce of pot on Federal property is a crime. However, would the cell be best occupied by this guy,or the bank forger,or embezzler. All are non violent.

Maybe fining the pothead and giving them a large fine, with $1000.00 off per month they pass a urine test.

[Iowa #1603]

Get tough on crime does notwork all the time. .

But you see it doesn't matter if it doesn't work. IT LOOKS GOOD. That is all that matters to the politicians.

That , and a politician will NOT get reelected if they are not tough on crime

[zigziggityzoo]

But you see it doesn't matter if it doesn't work. IT LOOKS GOOD. That is all that matters to the politicians.

That , and a politician will NOT get reelected if they are not tough on crime

True enough. Feel good legislation is, by and large, quite worthless when you get to the brass tacks.

[zigziggityzoo]

This topic is about sentencing for Federal Crimes. I am really sure that the punk kid caught smoking pot for the first time at a house party is not finding himself in a Federal court facing Federal time in Federal prison.

FB

You're right, the pothead probably won't find himself in Federal court, but the point remains true - that legislators are trying to do the job of Judges so they don't have to.

The judge and jury should decide.

That doesn't mean that I'm soft on crime, I'm all for harsh sentencing when it's warranted. But a judge should decide when it's warranted based upon the facts in front of him.