Charlie Savage is concise:
WASHINGTON — In a major shift in criminal justice policy, the Obama administration will move on Monday to ease overcrowding in federal prisons by ordering prosecutors to omit listing quantities of illegal substances in indictments for low-level drug cases, sidestepping federal laws that impose strict mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses.
That’s really all you need to know. The Department of Justice is going to intentionally seek lighter sentences for minor drug offenses than those envisioned by federal law.
You can start clapping now.
Can the Justice Dept. simply de-legislatate legislation passed by Congress by refusing to implement it? If so, why not simply ignore the debt ceiling passed by Congress in favour of other spending bills passed by Congress. Surely some conservative group will take this to SCOTUS? Or some over-zealous prosecutor will refuse to toe the line and generate sentences not imposed on similar behaviour elsewhere?
I appreciate prosecutors have always had a degree of discretion in deciding what charges to press – particularly in a plea-bargain situation. But an across the board instruction to all prosecutors in all cases of not to implement the law in certain circumstances surely crosses a line SCOTUS will find unconstitutional?
How can the SCOTUS force prosecutors to introduce evidence?
By invalidating all the convictions? I guess that would be a tad self-defeating, hahaha.
What’s to prevent a judge asking, directly, what quantity of drugs was involved? Withholding evidence can be a crime.
Don’t get me wrong, as a Director of a Restorative Justice Service I have long viewed the US “Justice” system with horror. However would your attitude of approval be the same if prosecutors withheld evidence or didn’t press provable charges against banksters?
No, my attitude would be disapproving if provable charges were not made against white-collar criminals.
Oh, wait!!
That’s been the policy since forever.
So you support the extension of this practice to nice white collar drug users at the discretion of nice white collar prosecutors?
I had that same thought when I first saw the headline, but this isn’t actually prosector-level discretion. This is a binding order to apply a set of standards:
Under a policy memorandum being sent to all United States attorney offices on Monday, according to an administration official, prosecutors will be told that they may not write the specific quantity of drugs when drafting indictments for drug defendants who meet the following four criteria: their conduct did not involve violence, the use of a weapon or sales to minors; they are not leaders of a criminal organization; they have no significant ties to large-scale gangs or cartels; and they have no significant criminal history.
I support not putting people in prison for a decade because they sold someone a modest amount of drugs.
I presume you’re deliberately muddying my process question with a substance answer because you don’t want to deal with the implications of the process.
What you’re effectively saying is that you think the law should be enforced when you think its a good law – against banksters etc. – and that the law shouldn’t be enforced when it is a bad law. You have just replaced Government by congressional legislation with government by bureaucratic decree.
I’m suggesting to you that even though we agree its crazy to lock people up for decades for minor drug offenses, there are also dangers involved in the Executive Branch unilaterally deciding when, whether, and where to implement laws and when not to. In fact isn’t selective law enforcement a large part of the problem with regard to oppression of minorities in the USA?
And what good is this new directive to the many thousands already imprisoned for many years for minor drug offenses? Are they not entitled to feel a bit peeved that someone committing the same offense today that they committed last week will get off without a jail sentence? Whatever happened to equality before the law?
Is Obama going to pardon all minor drug offenders imprisoned prior to this directive? I think he should – and at least he has the constitutional power to do so.
Frank, you know what the big problem is here in the States?
The big problem is that the underclass is getting the shaft. Part of the reason is globalization the loss of jobs, part of it is lack of access to quality education, nutrition, and medical care. All of it is made worse by the Republican Party. And I can’t even begin to complain about equality before the law when you can steal someone’s pension and get off with a fine but you can do ten years for selling someone something to numb the pain of their shitty existence.
This isn’t a case of making a bad situation worse. This is a case of refusing to continue to enforce unjust laws.
Agreed on all points, but will Obama follow through by pardoning all those imprisoned prior to the directive? Would Democrats in Congress even try to pass a law reducing mandatory sentencing? I know we laugh at Republicans for voting 40 times to repeal Obamacare, but they are sending a message and showing unity and resolve, and no one can doubt what they would do if they did win the Senate. Can we say the same for Democrats? Even when they did have a supermajority they were constantly beholden to the Liebermans of this world, and Obama constantly put “bipartisanship” above making objectively better decisions. That is at least partly why he has lost so much respect now.
Pardoning isn’t the procedure here.
When the Sentencing Commission changed mandatory minimums in previous cases, people’s sentences were retroactively reduced, and thousands were released.
Congress has already passed some bills that reduced mandatory minimums – for instance, the bill to eliminate the disparity between powder and crack cocaine sentences.
If so, why not simply ignore the debt ceiling passed by Congress in favour of other spending bills passed by Congress.
Because declining to use a power that Congress authorizes is not the same thing as choosing to ignore a restriction that Congress imposes on a power.
Or some over-zealous prosecutor will refuse to toe the line and generate sentences not imposed on similar behaviour elsewhere?
A federal prosecutor could certainly do this. He won’t be a federal prosecutor very long, at least not in his current position. Every federal prosecutor has a boss.
Another way to look at it is to ask what the executive is supposed to do if Congress isn’t doing its job. In this case Congress wants to force the Justice Department to seek particularly harsh penalties for certain offenses, but are they giving them the resources they need to keep all those people locked up? Obviously not.
Similar with the debt ceiling. Personally I’d rather not see Obama keep paying the nation’s debts without Congressional authorization, but that’s infinitely preferable to not paying the nation’s debts.
And my feeling is that he could actually get away with it much more easily this time around than the last time they threatened to destroy the economy on purpose. It’s a dangerous game they’re playing, because this shows to what extent they’ve already damaged the institutional authority of Congress.
So what they’re risking is that the could actually force the president to act autocratically. Fortunately Obama is much more Abraham Lincoln than Andrew Jackson, but there would come a point when he would have no choice.
And then, if for instance Obama continues to pay the nation’s debts in defiance of Congress, the Republicans have two options. They could impeach him, and then the Senate would acquit; or they could find some way to get the case to the Supreme Court and see if they can get the conservative majority to order Obama to destroy the economy. And then Obama either destroys the economy or says, “John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
I don’t know, as far as I am concerned, this is exactly what should be done. Ignore the debt ceiling in fav<bo</b>r of authorized spending. Other countries don’t have a debt ceiling. It’s a relic.
.
WAtoday.com.au – US Justice Department wants shorter drug sentences to free up prisons by Charlie Savage
Thanks and note this:
Holder following the lead of the progressive states of Texas and Arkansas! When will Democrats/liberals get it that draconian “law and order” legislation as implemented by the various criminal justice systems lose popularity when the price tag is presented.
Actually, “progressive” states like Texas and Arkansas are following the lead of no-scare-quotes-needed progressive states like Massachusetts, which have been doing this sort of thing for more than a decade.
Which you would know if you were paying attention to these issues.
When will Democrats/liberals get it that draconian “law and order” legislation as implemented by the various criminal justice systems lose popularity when the price tag is presented.
A decade or more ago, since you didn’t notice.
You mean like the enlightened city of NY with it’s racist “stop and frisk” policy? (Now unconstitutional unless the city appeals the decision.)
Are you up on all the laws and practices of the criminal justice systems in the various west coast states? So you know what you can do with your snotty patronizing attitude.
So now we’re dropping the entire claim that this policy comes from Texas and Arkansas, and saying Random Bad Shit ‘Bout Blue States?
Go ahead, so as much Random Bad Shit ‘Bout Blue States as you’d like.
This is not a policy that comes from states like Texas and Arkansas. This is a policy that comes from other states with more enlightened prosecutorial and court systems, which is being adopted more widely, such as by Texas, Arkansas, and the federal government.
I don’t know, that’s what’s working with capital punishment, but not in Texas.
Texas is doing it because they have no other choice. It’s what an anti-tax jihad will eventually get you.
Governments always have choices. And they are rarely a question of A or B. Or in this case, more drug-related prisoners and increased taxes or fewer prisoners and lower taxes. They could have added prisoners by reducing state funding for higher education — that’s what California has been doing for decades.
Interesting policy change.
What’s a “low level drug offense” in practice?
Well, the guidelines are aimed at the introduction of evidence about the quantity of drugs being peddled. If they don’t introduce evidence that a certain quantity has been exceeded then the mandatory minimum sentence cannot be invoked.
Right, but I’m wondering what the guidelines will be for deciding when to introduce quantity and when not to.
That appears to depend on other factors like gang affiliation, prior record, use of a weapon, etc.
So there are good gangs and bad gangs? There are no independent drug dealers.
There are in California.
I saw somebody use as their example “arrested with five kilos of cocaine.”
OK, that guy is not an independent operator.
This is great news. A lot of folks have been waiting years, if not decades for this. Congrats to Mr. Holder, his team, and most importantly to the third-party groups who’ve been pushing this unglamorous issue for so long.
Really? For those that would like to know a bit more from Think Progress:
Presumably some portion of those inmates committed what would be considered “low-level crimes.” We just don’t know if their numbers are large or small.
Applause.
Next step. Stop prosecutors from overcharging offenses as a plea bargaining tactic when evidence does not support those charges. Especially when the offenders are poor and minority and underdefended by public defenders.
You mean like when they charged George Zimmerman with second degree murder?
Well, I guess he didn’t take the plea, so…
The problem isn’t forcing plea agreements. The problem is ridiculous sentencing.
Another problem is not giving prosecutors or judges any leeway. You could argue that mandatory sentencing laws are a legislative infringement on the prerogatives of the executive and/or judicial branches. Criminal justice really should be approached like medical care, on a case by case basis. Every case is unique, so you have to have some flexibility.
You could, but mandatory sentences started as a reaction to widely disparate sentences. Then it got a frankenstein life of its own.
The family of Aaron Schwartz begs to disagree.
this is fabulous news
No it’s not. It is official lawlessness. Legislative repeal would be good news.
I’m really impressed.
Your concern for the constitution and the integrity of the political process is exactly up to the high standards of the Republican Party.
What’s that? You’re a Democrat?
Oh.
Electing a President to appoint an Attorney General, who is responsible for guidance to United States Attorneys, isn’t the political process?