Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
50. But
Mon Jan 20, 2014, 03:25 PM
Jan 2014

"He has averaged 36 medical marijuana prosecutions a year since taking office in 2009, whereas even W. only averaged 20 a year. Most egregious are that many of these cases were brought against persons who needed the drug to ameliorate painful medical conditions. "

...Bush isn't the one working to change the policies.

"Doesn’t he have a duty to pardon the 154 people he has prosecuted in contravention of his campaign pledge and in contravention of state laws?"

What about the people "163" prosecuted under Bush? Doesn't Obama have a "duty" to pardon them too?

The President addressed crack sentencing in his first term, and recently announced a new policy.

Police Groups Furiously Protest Eric Holder's Marijuana Policy Announcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014581533

U.S. Orders More Steps to Curb Stiff Drug Sentences

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Thursday expanded its effort to curtail severe penalties for low-level federal drug offenses, ordering prosecutors to refile charges against defendants in pending cases and strip out any references to specific quantities of illicit substances that would trigger mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

The move, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. at a speech before the annual conference of the Congressional Black Caucus, builds on a major policy change he unveiled last month to avoid mandatory minimum sentencing laws in future low-level cases.

“By reserving the most severe prison terms for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers or kingpins, we can better enhance public safety,” Mr. Holder said. “We can increase our focus on proven strategies for deterrence and rehabilitation. And we can do so while making our expenditures smarter and more productive.”

The policy applies to defendants who meet four criteria: their offense did not involve violence, the use of a weapon, or selling drugs to minors; they are not leaders of a criminal organization; they have no significant ties to large-scale gangs or drug trafficking organizations; and they have no significant criminal histories.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/administration-orders-new-step-to-curtail-stiff-drug-sentences.html

Background on progress.

Justice Is Served

By Laura W. Murphy

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

Today is an exciting day for the ACLU and criminal justice advocates around the country. Following much thought and careful deliberation, the United States Sentencing Commission took another step toward creating fairness in federal sentencing by retroactively applying the new Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) guidelines to individuals sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people — 85 percent of whom are African-Americans — will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.

This decision is particularly important to me because, as director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, I have advocated for Congress and the sentencing commission to reform federal crack cocaine laws for almost 20 years. In 1993, the ACLU lead the coalition that convened the first national symposium highlighting the crack cocaine disparity entitled "The 100 to 1 Ratio: Racial Bias in Cocaine Laws." Now, 25 years after the first crack cocaine law was enacted in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the sentencing commission has taken another step toward ending the racial and sentencing disparities that continue to exist in our criminal justice system.

By voting in favor of retroactivity, I am pleased that the commission chose justice over demagoguery and concluded that retroactivity was necessary to ensuring that the goals of the FSA were fully realized. It is important to remember that even with today's commission vote not every crack cocaine offender will have his or her sentence reduced. Judges are still required to determine whether a person qualifies for a retroactive reduction so, contrary to what some have said, this is not a "get out of jail free card."

- more -

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served

Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today

Sentencing Reform Starts to Pay Off

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the vast disparity in the way the federal courts punish crack versus powder cocaine offenses. Instead of treating 100 grams of cocaine the same as 1 gram of crack for sentencing purposes, the law cut the ratio to 18 to 1. Initially, the law applied only to future offenders, but, a year later, the United States Sentencing Commission voted to apply it retroactively. Republicans raged, charging that crime would go up and that prisoners would overwhelm the courts with frivolous demands for sentence reductions. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa said the commission was pursuing “a liberal agenda at all costs.”

This week, we began to learn that there are no costs, only benefits. According to a preliminary report released by the commission, more than 7,300 federal prisoners have had their sentences shortened under the law. The average reduction is 29 months, meaning that over all, offenders are serving roughly 16,000 years fewer than they otherwise would have. And since the federal government spends about $30,000 per year to house an inmate, this reduction alone is worth nearly half-a-billion dollars — big money for a Bureau of Prisons with a $7 billion budget. In addition, the commission found no significant difference in recidivism rates between those prisoners who were released early and those who served their full sentences.

Federal judges nationwide have long expressed vigorous disagreement with both the sentencing disparity and the mandatory minimum sentences they are forced to impose, both of which have been drivers of our bloated federal prison system. But two bipartisan bills in Congress now propose a cheaper and more humane approach. It would include reducing mandatory minimums, giving judges more flexibility to sentence below those minimums, and making more inmates eligible for reductions to their sentences under the new ratio.

But 18 to 1 is still out of whack. The ratio was always based on faulty science and misguided assumptions, and it still disproportionately punishes blacks, who make up more than 80 percent of those prosecuted for federal crack offenses. The commission and the Obama administration have called for a 1-to-1 ratio. The question is not whether we can afford to do it, but whether we can afford not to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/sentencing-reform-starts-to-pay-off.html

Washington Gives Us Something to Get Excited About (No, Really!)
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/washington-gives-us-something-get-excited-about-no-really

How to Process Eric Holder’s Major Criminal Law Reform Speech

By Laura W. Murphy

Attorney General Eric Holder just called mass incarceration a moral and economic failure. He just outlined several major proposals that he says will help to ease major overcrowding in federal prisons. And he just suggested that federal prosecutors should avoid harsh mandatory minimums for certain low-level, non-violent drug offenses.

What should we make of the nation’s top prosecutor calling out the US for throwing too many people behind bars and challenging the failed war on drugs?

First off, we should acknowledge that this is a big deal! This is the first speech by any Attorney General calling for such massive criminal justice reforms. This is the first major address from the Obama Administration calling for action to end the mass incarceration crisis and reduce the racial disparities that plague our criminal justice system. In the same speech, the Attorney General committed to take on the school-to-prison pipeline and called on Congress to end the forced budget cuts that have decimated public defenders nationwide. This is great news.

The ACLU can proudly say that it has been deeply engaged in policy discussions with this administration, and Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Many of the reforms that we have long championed made it into the Attorney General’s speech, including:

  1. Developing guidelines to file fewer cases

  2. Directing a group of U.S. Attorneys to examine sentencing disparities and develop recommendations to address them

  3. Directing every U.S. Attorney to designate a Prevention and Reentry Coordinator

  4. Directing every DOJ component to consider whether regulations have collateral consequences that impair reentry

  5. Reducing mandatory minimum charging for low-level drug offenses

  6. Expanding eligibility for compassionate release; and

  7. Identifying and sharing best practices for diversion programs

  8. Calling into question zero tolerance policies and other policies that lead to the school to prison pipeline

  9. Challenging the legal community to make the promise of Gideon (right to counsel) more of a reality

- more -

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-racial-justice/how-process-eric-holders-major-criminal-law-reform-speech

Action should match words - we'll see. polichick Jan 2014 #1
He needs to pardon them NOW SHRED Jan 2014 #2
When I say things like that, I'm called "bitter" - but yes... polichick Jan 2014 #3
Bitter? SHRED Jan 2014 #4
One poster who complains that people don't "praise" Obama enough... polichick Jan 2014 #6
These are POLITICAL PRISONERS SHRED Jan 2014 #13
Does the Federal Government have Private for Profit Prisons? Bandit Jan 2014 #21
Yes, the Feds contract with the prison companies: malthaussen Jan 2014 #35
Federal Private Prison Populations Grew by 784% in 10 Year Span woo me with science Jan 2014 #39
Seems the boundaries between the fed gov't (state gov'ts too) and... polichick Jan 2014 #40
He needs to get the DOJ to stop enforcing the stupid pot laws. Jackpine Radical Jan 2014 #5
Exactly. Why doesn't he use the power that We, the People gave him? polichick Jan 2014 #7
He has employed that power and told the feds to back off in state where it is legal. Comrade Grumpy Jan 2014 #49
Those CA raids seem unjust to me - and seems the prez could stop them... polichick Jan 2014 #51
I'm sure the president would pardon them all today but underthematrix Jan 2014 #8
He could just make them in the Oval Office. polichick Jan 2014 #10
unlike Dr. King who had actual courage SHRED Jan 2014 #11
The President has absolute pardon power. Bluenorthwest Jan 2014 #12
Five years into his Presidency now. woo me with science Jan 2014 #17
I guess he could jeopardize his re-election chances Jackpine Radical Jan 2014 #20
you forgot the hope part. Phlem Jan 2014 #52
They should never have been arrested, they should already be pardoned. Bluenorthwest Jan 2014 #9
Election season. woo me with science Jan 2014 #14
thank you for this! SHRED Jan 2014 #15
Thank you for the thread. woo me with science Jan 2014 #41
It's horrifying to think that all it'll ever be is talk... polichick Jan 2014 #16
I could see corporate power... SHRED Jan 2014 #18
I'd say the federal governments deal with the Sinaloa cartel is a bigger problem... Jesus Malverde Jan 2014 #19
President Obama helps our cause and immediately he is attacked... tridim Jan 2014 #22
"our cause" SHRED Jan 2014 #23
Obama is helping us legalize cannabis. tridim Jan 2014 #24
I'm sorry, WHAT? Le Taz Hot Jan 2014 #26
He could do two things instead of lip service SHRED Jan 2014 #27
He's helping us legalize cannabis by arresting legal purveyors of cannabis. progressoid Jan 2014 #28
My head hurts. Le Taz Hot Jan 2014 #30
Kind of like how we bombed freedom into Iraq. progressoid Jan 2014 #58
He has done no such thing. He has prevented progress with the his AG's actions. nt TeamPooka Jan 2014 #53
"our cause" = the blind worship of the a politician lol nt msongs Jan 2014 #42
People in this thread are challenging Le Taz Hot Jan 2014 #25
I've been addressing the issue since Obama made his statement over the weekend. tridim Jan 2014 #29
You're looking less than intelligent Le Taz Hot Jan 2014 #31
This "issue" has been raised three times this morning. tridim Jan 2014 #32
Well, see, there's the problem. Le Taz Hot Jan 2014 #34
"hates" SHRED Jan 2014 #33
Don't you hate it when a fellow Obama voters says you hate Obama? Rex Jan 2014 #37
precisely SHRED Jan 2014 #38
It is so bizarre. It is their way of trying to silence any dissent. morningfog Jan 2014 #47
I think a lot of them are authoritarians Rex Jan 2014 #55
Just hide it and move along. morningfog Jan 2014 #46
You know what, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he will do it. Rex Jan 2014 #36
Isn't it within his power right now? davidthegnome Jan 2014 #44
Only for those convicted of federal crimes. morningfog Jan 2014 #48
Weed Bowl 2014 (WA vs. CO) is a humorous opportunity to keep this issue on the front... burner. AtheistCrusader Jan 2014 #43
The truth? The same reason he's done more deportations.... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #45
Do you and he know that Obama's not running again for anything? TeamPooka Jan 2014 #54
The Right is in constant campaign mode and suffer from projection. Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #56
What does the Right Wing have to do with Obama's chosen course of action? TeamPooka Jan 2014 #63
Don't you know job #1 for Democrats is to prove to the beltway they're as good as Republicans? Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2014 #64
But ProSense Jan 2014 #50
I see you got crickets to your questions, ProSense.. you Cha Jan 2014 #61
I don't think so. Congress and the states get to change the laws, not Obama. Coyotl Jan 2014 #57
Grievances RainDog Jan 2014 #59
it's what happens when your position changes with the direction of popular opinion Skittles Jan 2014 #60
This fucking shit again? Buddyblazon Jan 2014 #62
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Barack Obama has a weed p...»Reply #50