Eric Holder Continues to Infuriate The "Law And Order" Authoritarians?

Formaldehyde

Both Fair And Balanced
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
33,999
Location
USA #1
He has effectively now declared war on their draconian criminal justice policies which have caused the US to become a laughingstock among other modern countries for the past 30 years:

Holder seeks to avert mandatory minimum sentences for some low-level drug offenders

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Monday that low-level, nonviolent drug offenders with no ties to gangs or large-scale drug organizations will no longer be charged with offenses that impose severe mandatory sentences.

The new Justice Department policy is part of a comprehensive prison reform package that Holder unveiled in a speech to the American Bar Association in San Francisco. He also introduced a policy to reduce sentences for elderly, nonviolent inmates and find alternatives to prison for nonviolent criminals.

Justice Department lawyers have worked for months on the proposals, which Holder wants to make the cornerstone of the rest of his tenure.

“We must face the reality that, as it stands, our system is, in too many ways, broken,” Holder said. “And with an outsized, unnecessarily large prison population, we need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, to deter and to rehabilitate — not merely to warehouse and to forget.”

“A vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities,” Holder said Monday. (Excerpts of his prepared remarks were provided Sunday to The Washington Post.) He added that “many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate these problems rather than alleviate them.”

It is clear that “too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long and for no truly good law enforcement reason,” Holder said. “We cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation,” he added later in the speech.

Holder is calling for a change in Justice Department policies to reserve the most severe penalties for drug offenses for serious, high-level or violent drug traffickers. He has directed his 94 U.S. attorneys across the country to develop specific, locally tailored guidelines for determining when federal charges should be filed and when they should not.

He also said the Justice Department would work with the Department of Education and other allies “to confront the ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ and those zero-tolerance school discipline policies that do not promote safety,” but instead serve as gateways to the criminal justice system.

“A minor school disciplinary offense should put a student in the principal’s office and not a police precinct,” Holder said.

The attorney general can make some changes to drug policy on his own. He is giving new instructions to federal prosecutors on how they should write their criminal complaints when charging low-level drug offenders, to avoid triggering the mandatory minimum sentences. Under certain statutes, inflexible sentences for drug crimes are mandated regardless of the facts or conduct in the case, reducing the discretion of prosecutors, judges and juries.

Some of Holder’s other initiatives will require legislative change. Holder is urging passage of legislation with bipartisan support that is aimed at giving federal judges more discretion in applying mandatory minimum sentences to certain drug offenses.

“Although incarceration has a role to play in our justice system, widespread incarceration at the federal, state and local levels is both ineffective and unsustainable,” Holder said.

He said legislation supported by Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) “will ultimately save our country billions of dollars.”

The cost of incarceration in the United States was $80 billion in 2010, according to the Justice Department. While the U.S. population has increased by about a third since 1980, the federal prison population has grown by about 800 percent. Justice Department officials said federal prisons are operating at nearly 40 percent over capacity.

Federal officials attribute part of that increase to mandatory minimum sentences for drugs, including marijuana, under legislation passed in the 1980s. Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, for example, a minimum sentence of five years without parole was mandated for possession of five grams of crack cocaine, while the same sentence was mandated for possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine, law enforcement officials said, pointing to discrepancies that they say have led to higher levels of incarceration in poorer communities.

“Sentencing by mandatory minimums is the antithesis of rational sentencing policy,” American Bar Association lawyer James E. Felman said in testimony three years ago before the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Although the United States is home to 5 percent of the world’s population, almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners are incarcerated in American prisons, according to the Justice Department. More than 219,000 federal inmates are behind bars, and almost half of them are serving time for drug-related crimes.

An additional 9 million to 10 million people cycle through local jails in the United States each year. About 40 percent of former federal prisoners and more than 60 percent of former state prisoners are rearrested or have their supervision revoked within three years after their release, often for technical or minor violations of the terms of their release.

Holder said he has also revised the department’s prison policy to allow for more compassionate releases of elderly inmates who did not commit violent crimes, have served significant portions of their sentences and pose no threat to the public.

Over the next weeks, Holder and his deputies plan to visit cities to promote their prison agenda and point to examples of the type of change the attorney general is advocating.

New legislation in Kentucky, for example, has reserved prison beds for only the most serious criminals, focusing resources instead on community supervision and other alternatives. The state is projected to reduce its prison population by more than 3,000 over the next 10 years, saving more than $400 million, according to Justice Department officials.

Investments in drug treatment for nonviolent offenders and changes to parole policies helped Arkansas reduce its prison population by more than 1,400 inmates, U.S. officials said, and led to a reduction in the prison population of more than 5,000 inmates last year in Texas.

Holder did not announce any changes in the Justice Department’s policy on marijuana, which is illegal under federal law. Two states, Colorado and Washington, legalized marijuana in November. Supporters of the measures argued that hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted on a failed war against marijuana that has filled American prisons will low-level offenders.

Supporters also contended that decriminalization would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue that could be used for education, health care and other government services.

But the legalization measures directly violate the federal Controlled Substances Act, which prohibits the production, possession and sale of marijuana and classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, putting it in the same category as LSD and heroin. The Justice Department has not said how it will respond to the measures in Colorado and Washington, leaving state and local officials confused about exactly how to proceed. A Justice Department spokesman said the matter is still under review.
Do you think he will get the legislative support for trying to effectively end the so-called "war on drugs"? Or does it have a snowball's chance in hell given that Republicans control the House?
 
Holder seems to be one of the most polarising figures in the US, given that he has been summoned to testify to congress for scandals of his office more than anyone else. Is it really a good idea to have him as the figure-head of any sort of major change in the country's system?

Sounds more like smoke and mirrors by Holder. And to answer your question: i am pretty sure you know that he will almost certainly fail to get the votes needed to pass any of this.
 
It is hardly surprising that you apparently think the incessant partisan nonsense regarding the Justice Department should mean that he shouldn't even try to do his own job by making such long-needed policy decisions, regardless of whether or not Congress does its part to reform a badly broken system.
 
Won't this hurt all those private for-profit prisons that you guys have down there in the U.S. ?

Don't they have a lot influence in terms of not only having "The state must provide us X prisoners per year" deals in place but also a lot of money to throw at any politician who might think of backing such a move?

I skimmed through the article and didn't see this mentioned anywhere, but I'm at work so I could have missed something
 
The federal prisons aren't privatized. It is still going to take massive changes at the state level for that to occur. But it sounds like it is already occurring in Kentucky, Arkansas, and Texas at least to some extent.
 
The federal prisons aren't privatized.

:confused:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csfcf05.pdf
• Private correctional facilities (up 151) accounted for
nearly all of the increase in the number of adult correctional facilities between June 30, 2000, and December
30, 2005. Most of the growth in private correctional facilities during this period was in facilities under contract to
the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

• From 2000 to 2005, the number of private facilities
increased from 16% (264) to 23% (415) of all institutions. About two-thirds of all private facilities were under
contract to state authorities and a third were under contract to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Not that I think you were intending to defend privatization of prisons, though. ;)
 
If it's a "policy" change then I won't hold my breath. None of his underlings seemed to care about his "policy' on medical cannabis. His replacement can also do whatever he or she wants.

The laws need to be changed.
 
He has effectively now declared war on their draconian criminal justice policies which have caused the US to become a laughingstock among other modern countries for the past 30 years:

Holder seeks to avert mandatory minimum sentences for some low-level drug offenders

Do you think he will get the legislative support for trying to effectively end the so-called "war on drugs"? Or does it have a snowball's chance in hell given that Republicans control the House?

Obama might be able to get legislative support if he makes it a priority.

Holder doesn't have as snowball's chance in hell.
Not since he was found in Contempt of Congress and declined to prosecute himself.


The attorney general can make some changes to drug policy on his own. He is giving new instructions to federal prosecutors on how they should write their criminal complaints when charging low-level drug offenders, to avoid triggering the mandatory minimum sentences.
Not fully prosecuting low level drug offenders by rewording the charges so they won't trip mandatory sentencing laws is legal but irritating.

One more initiative for the Chief Policeman of America carefully ignoring laws he doesn't like.

I am sympathetic for this one though, so I won't rant against Holder like usual.
 
Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, for example, a minimum sentence of five years without parole was mandated for possession of five grams of crack cocaine, while the same sentence was mandated for possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine

That is indeed a problem. I don't see any reason why there would be any difficulty changing it so that 5 grams of powder cocaine trigger the minimum.
 
That is indeed a problem. I don't see any reason why there would be any difficulty changing it so that 5 grams of powder cocaine trigger the minimum.

I think the 2 drugs might be in different categories, but I could be wrong about that. i.e. cat. 1 vs cat. 2

It's kind of funny but not really how obvious it is why this difference exists in the first place though.
 
Holder deserves NO credit. This has been a glaring problem for some time...our "justice" system is a disgrace. We have just 5% of the worlds population and have 25% of it's incarcerated!!!

The proposed change is WAAAAAAAAAAAY over due and only now being talked about due to severe budget concerns.

IMO Holder is a LIAR. They said they would not target dispensaries and yet have gone after them with ferocity! The ignorance of our federal government with their "war on drugs" is so much so that one has to argue that it is not plain stupidity but rooted in ulterior motives. I have plenty to say on this subject but will not because I will end up spending the next 2 hours typing...and none of you want to read that..
 
I think the 2 drugs might be in different categories, but I could be wrong about that. i.e. cat. A vs cat. B

It's kind of funny but not really how obvious it is why this difference exists in the first place though.

They identical in almost all respects, it's like charging a person who smoked marijuana differently than someone who ate a pot brownie.

I believe that rock cocaine and powder cocaine are scheduled the same (what you meant by categories) but prosecuted differently.

I've heard racism (whites traditionally preferred powder while blacks went with rocks) had a lot to do with the justifications, that and the perception that the varying potency (rocks will get you higher than snorted powder) should be taken into account.
 
Oh, who am I kidding. :mad:

Holder!

He's admitted that we are living under lawlessness and he won't do anything about it!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," Holder said, according to The Hill. "And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large."

What kind of lawman thinking is this!!!

Has fraud and criminality become so large in our economy that it depends on it?

How is this different than arguing we shouldn't stop piracy in Somalia because it is such a large part of the local economy?



Our economy will NEVER EVER recover until the fraud and criminality is brutally prosecuted.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/LNS12500000.txt

June 2000 - 114 million full time jobs
June 2007 - 120.7 million full time jobs
June 2013 - 116 million full time jobs


Yes, by all means focus on marijuana while $trillions are stolen.
 
I'm not a Holder fan, but I hate mandatory minimum sentencing even more. Let the courts do their freaking jobs, people. Sure, sometimes bad people will go free too soon. Sure, the system won't be perfectly egalitarian. But is an overzealous police state, regardless of whether the rat b*stard running it has a blue hat or a red hat, really worth it?

Same with three strikes, damnit.

It's part of that "tough on crime" act. Nothing but swagger. If someone is actually a murderer, or a rapist, or in the stages of planning a terror attack then go nuts, but we need to be more judicious about just locking people up.

Hell, I wouldn't want to be the cop who has to show up for that third strike. I'm not a violent guy by any means, but if I knew I was guaranteed to go to prison for life I might very well go down fighting. There's no point in going peacefully in that situation. If I thought I might see the light of day again then going for my day in court might sound more appealing. Common sense, assh*les.

Sorry, /rant off.
 
:confused:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csfcf05.pdf


Not that I think you were intending to defend privatization of prisons, though. ;)
Now that's a surprise. I thought only state prisons were privatized. I had no idea the federal government had also sunk this low. I stand corrected.

Not since he was found in Contempt of Congress and declined to prosecute himself.
What exactly does it mean that those who are truly contemptible find someone else in contempt for incredibly contemptible partisan reasons? Should anybody care?

Not fully prosecuting low level drug offenders by rewording the charges so they won't trip mandatory sentencing laws is legal but irritating.
Why is it "irritating" to stop persecuting people for incredibly minor criminal violations of the law, which are typically dealt with by citation instead of arrest these days?

One more initiative for the Chief Policeman of America carefully ignoring laws he doesn't like.
I don't think you understand much about the criminal justice system if you confuse the district attorneys with the police. But both the police and the prosecutors have frequently used discretion in whom to charge with violating the law. Do you seriously think that any speeder or jaywalker should be arrested and thrown in jail?

That is indeed a problem. I don't see any reason why there would be any difficulty changing it so that 5 grams of powder cocaine trigger the minimum.
Therein lies the real problem. There are far too many "law and order" authoritarians who don't understand the first thing about drugs making the decisions. This sort of draconian approach to an incredibly minor problem in the grand scheme of things once led to the state of Texas handing out 5 year sentences for mere possession of marijuana.
 
I don't think you understand much about the criminal justice system if you confuse the district attorneys with the police. But both the police and the prosecutors have frequently used discretion in whom to charge with violating the law. Do you seriously think that any speeder or jaywalker should be arrested and thrown in jail?

Sorry, Chief Lawman, not Chief Policeman. You're right about that.

This is an interesting read about prosecutorial discretion.
http://www.columbialawreview.org/ham-sandwich-nation_reynolds/
 
Sorry, Chief Lawman, not Chief Policeman. You're right about that.
"In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories."
 
Top Bottom