US DOJ to push for reduced sentences for nonviolent drug offenders

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

source

Eric Holder to push for shorter US drug sentences

US Attorney General Eric Holder is supporting a proposal to shorten prison sentences for most drug dealers.

He backed the policy while testifying before the US Sentencing Commission, which made the proposal in January.

The move to lower guideline penalties for specific drug crimes is an effort to rein in inflated federal prison costs.

The US has almost a quarter of the world's prison population - one in every 99 Americans is behind bars.

Under the proposal, the harshest penalties would be reserved for dangerous and violent criminals.

"This over-reliance on incarceration is not just financially unsustainable, it comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate," Mr Holder said, according to advance testimony obtained by the Associated Press news agency.

Mr Holder's appearance before the commission on Thursday is part of a broader push for revised federal sentencing policies.

US prisons in numbers:
Black and Hispanic people are over-represented in the prison system, 37% and 34% respectively
US prisons are operating at nearly 40% above capacity
Some 219,000 federal inmates are behind bars
The cost of incarceration in the US was $80bn (£50bn) in 2010
Source: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons

In August, he directed prosecutors to stop charging many nonviolent drug offenders with offences carrying mandatory minimum sentences.

The US Sentencing Commission in January proposed altering guidelines altogether to shorten penalties for many drug dealing crimes.

That proposal would reduce the average sentence of a drug trafficker by 11 months.

It would also shrink the federal prison population by 6,550 inmates over five years, the justice department said.

It estimates that 70% of drug dealing offenders would be affected by the change.

The proposal is not expected to be voted on until April at the earliest.

**Mr. Burning**

Is there any federal assistance or programs available for habitual drug users?

Users probably don't need incarceration but leaving them to their own devices after prison is probably going to create a vicious circle.

Users need their problems addressing.

I know that in the UK once your sentence is ended (in (community sentencesand when released on license)
the support mechanisms stop.

**Steve steveson**

Imprisonment for most drug offenses makes the problem worse, not better, as people are excluded from society, driven in to poverty, social isolation and joblessness. This drives hopelessness, more social isolation and drug use, which drives crime to feed a habit and survive.

IMO we need to look at drug use as an illness not criminal behavior, and minor drug dealing as a symptom. Street peddlers are not living in luxury and driving blinged out Bentleys, they are trying to feed a habit. IMO we would be better treating these problems and spending the money saved (Because we would save money, prison is expensive) on tackling the real problems of drug gangs. Smashing the chain rather than snipping links off the end that just get replaced.

**kronk**

Mr. Burning wrote:
Is there any federal assistance or programs available for habitual drug users?

Users probably don't need incarceration but leaving them to their own devices after prison is probably going to create a vicious circle.

Users need their problems addressing.

Agreed on users, but he's talking about reducing sentences on dealers, which I'm conflicted about. It's the dealers that are ruining people's lives.

**Mr. Burning**

kronk wrote:
Mr. Burning wrote:
Is there any federal assistance or programs available for habitual drug users?

Users probably don't need incarceration but leaving them to their own devices after prison is probably going to create a vicious circle.

Users need their problems addressing.

Agreed on users, but he's talking about reducing sentences on dealers, which I'm conflicted about. It's the dealers that are ruining people's lives.

I thought that at first - since the first para of the article specifies drug dealers but further down the article says it si for a number of offences - i sorta think that the drug dealers is part of but not the whole point of this push.

If not then there are instances where dealers are pushed into the crime to feed their own habit. acting as cut outs for main dealers etc. This aspect should be investigated very closely though.

**Ahtman**

I suppose it also depends on whether we are talking about actual drug dealers or sentencing people as drug dealers. Got enough weed on you to make one joint and you are a user, get caught with enough to make two joints and you get charged as a distributor.

**Steve steveson**

That is always a law I have found very odd. It seems to be undermining one of the basic principles of law, that the prosecution has to prove that you did or were going to brake the law. That always seemed to be a "might". Like using ownership of a car capable of braking the speed limit as proof that you are going to.

In the UK we have laws about intent to supply, and under that the CPS would have to prove that you intended to supply drugs. 10 oz of bud, a pack of baggies and a set of scales is probably proof. Carrying 1/4 of an oz they would have to work much harder.

Having said that some people claim that the police will do you for supplying for passing a joint around. No idea if it is true though.

**LordofHats**

Ahtman wrote:
I suppose it also depends on whether we are talking about actual drug dealers or sentencing people as drug dealers. Got enough weed on you to make one joint and you are a user, get caught with enough to make two joints and you get charged as a distributor.

This. So many of the people who get thrown in the slammer for dealing are not dealers. Somehow, we ended up in this twisted situation where having enough coke for five people for a weekend of craziness is enough to get you labelled a drug dealer with a longer sentence than a murderer. Intent to distribute charges are most of the time a load of BS. Prosecution doesn't even need to prove intent, just having the drugs on you is enough to charge you with the intent under the law.

And even then, the 30+ years you can get for dealing drugs, is excessive even for the people actually dealing drugs. Ignoring that prison is highly unlikely to stop from from dealing drugs at all once they get out (groups tend to respect members who've been to prison and not squealed, so really its almost a promotion). A new method needs to be derived to deal with dealers. What that punishment is though I have no idea. The simplist solution is to just legalize most drugs and tax them. Once they're out in the open and proper regulation in place, we might see a drop in use like we have with tobacco over the last few decades.

In the words of Stewie Griffon; Bring our boys home its an unwinnable war.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I suppose it also depends on whether we are talking about actual drug dealers or sentencing people as drug dealers. Got enough weed on you to make one joint and you are a user, get caught with enough to make two joints and you get charged as a distributor.

This. So many of the people who get thrown in the slammer for dealing are not dealers. Somehow, we ended up in this twisted situation where having enough coke for five people for a weekend of craziness is enough to get you labelled a drug dealer with a longer sentence than a murderer. Intent to distribute charges are most of the time a load of BS. Prosecution doesn't even need to prove intent, just having the drugs on you is enough to charge you with the intent under the law.

And even then, the 30+ years you can get for dealing drugs, is excessive even for the people actually dealing drugs. Ignoring that prison is highly unlikely to stop from from dealing drugs at all once they get out (groups tend to respect members who've been to prison and not squealed, so really its almost a promotion). A new method needs to be derived to deal with dealers. What that punishment is though I have no idea. The simplist solution is to just legalize most drugs and tax them. Once they're out in the open and proper regulation in place, we might see a drop in use like we have with tobacco over the last few decades.

In the words of Stewie Griffon; Bring our boys home its an unwinnable war.

I'd actually agree with you there. It's also the byproduct of the implementation of "Mandatory Sentencing" & for-profit-prisons.

**daedalus**

I don't know how to react. There's something that Holder wants to do that I actually agree with.

**cincydooley**

How about we just decriminalize marijuana and then tax the feth out of it....

**streamdragon**

whembly wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I suppose it also depends on whether we are talking about actual drug dealers or sentencing people as drug dealers. Got enough weed on you to make one joint and you are a user, get caught with enough to make two joints and you get charged as a distributor.

This. So many of the people who get thrown in the slammer for dealing are not dealers. Somehow, we ended up in this twisted situation where having enough coke for five people for a weekend of craziness is enough to get you labelled a drug dealer with a longer sentence than a murderer. Intent to distribute charges are most of the time a load of BS. Prosecution doesn't even need to prove intent, just having the drugs on you is enough to charge you with the intent under the law.

And even then, the 30+ years you can get for dealing drugs, is excessive even for the people actually dealing drugs. Ignoring that prison is highly unlikely to stop from from dealing drugs at all once they get out (groups tend to respect members who've been to prison and not squealed, so really its almost a promotion). A new method needs to be derived to deal with dealers. What that punishment is though I have no idea. The simplist solution is to just legalize most drugs and tax them. Once they're out in the open and proper regulation in place, we might see a drop in use like we have with tobacco over the last few decades.

In the words of Stewie Griffon; Bring our boys home its an unwinnable war.

I'd actually agree with you there. It's also the byproduct of the implementation of "Mandatory Sentencing" & for-profit-prisons.

I can not begin to describe my disgust at these. How in the holy frelling crap did someone not think what would happen when this was okayed? Like the judge who was taking kick backs and sentencing kids to years in prison for stupid kiddy crap like fighting in school or mocking their principal?

**Co'tor Shas**

streamdragon wrote:
whembly wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I suppose it also depends on whether we are talking about actual drug dealers or sentencing people as drug dealers. Got enough weed on you to make one joint and you are a user, get caught with enough to make two joints and you get charged as a distributor.

This. So many of the people who get thrown in the slammer for dealing are not dealers. Somehow, we ended up in this twisted situation where having enough coke for five people for a weekend of craziness is enough to get you labelled a drug dealer with a longer sentence than a murderer. Intent to distribute charges are most of the time a load of BS. Prosecution doesn't even need to prove intent, just having the drugs on you is enough to charge you with the intent under the law.

And even then, the 30+ years you can get for dealing drugs, is excessive even for the people actually dealing drugs. Ignoring that prison is highly unlikely to stop from from dealing drugs at all once they get out (groups tend to respect members who've been to prison and not squealed, so really its almost a promotion). A new method needs to be derived to deal with dealers. What that punishment is though I have no idea. The simplist solution is to just legalize most drugs and tax them. Once they're out in the open and proper regulation in place, we might see a drop in use like we have with tobacco over the last few decades.

In the words of Stewie Griffon; Bring our boys home its an unwinnable war.

I'd actually agree with you there. It's also the byproduct of the implementation of "Mandatory Sentencing" & for-profit-prisons.

I can not begin to describe my disgust at these. How in the holy frelling crap did someone not think what would happen when this was okayed? Like the judge who was taking kick backs and sentencing kids to years in prison for stupid kiddy crap like fighting in school or mocking their principal?

Cash for kids? That documentary was really telling about the problems with for-profit jails.

**Mr. Burning**

Steve steveson wrote:

Having said that some people claim that the police will do you for supplying for passing a joint around. No idea if it is true though.

In my experience It's those who are caught and sentenced/cautioned for an- for want of a better word - actual offence. Mainly those who hate the fuzz as a rule (because they get caught).

**hotsauceman1**

I agree. If you are non-violent, then you should not spend as much time in the joint for a joint. We have an overcrowded system that hurts those who come in. I think alot of reasonable people can agree that prison feths you up.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:
Is there any federal assistance or programs available for habitual drug users?

Users probably don't need incarceration but leaving them to their own devices after prison is probably going to create a vicious circle.

Users need their problems addressing.

I know that in the UK once your sentence is ended (in (community sentencesand when released on license)
the support mechanisms stop.

When you leave the jail, you get 500$ and a bus ticket

**cincydooley**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
When you leave the jail, you get 500$ and a bus ticket

Well that's simply not true. There's quite a bit of federally funded support available for prisoner re-entry.

Are their hands held? No. Are there plenty of programs to support successful reentry? Absolutely.

http://www.justice.gov/archive/fbci/progmenu_reentry.html

http://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/

**LordofHats**

The programs are ineffective and the problem is also largely beyond their control. It's a problem that takes more ingenuity than money to fix.

Our rehabilitation programs need a lot of work and restructuring to be effective as today they are largely not. We also need to adjust our cultural attitudes concerning ex-cons (not that I think people should instantly trust them mind you) so that they can be better engendered to leading productive normal lives rather than returning to their old ones. EDIT: Our rehabilitation programs are only rehabilitative in name. In practice they're more akin to persecution/second prison.

**Siberiandreamer**

Being put in jail for something you put in your body is absolutely barbaric and immoral. Also, are the dealers forcing you to take drugs? If you have a habit then you certainly need help; but people are just as easily hooked on legal substances and drugs are not the boogeyman people seem to imagine them to be. The war on drugs need to be ended.

**whembly**

streamdragon wrote:
whembly wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I suppose it also depends on whether we are talking about actual drug dealers or sentencing people as drug dealers. Got enough weed on you to make one joint and you are a user, get caught with enough to make two joints and you get charged as a distributor.

This. So many of the people who get thrown in the slammer for dealing are not dealers. Somehow, we ended up in this twisted situation where having enough coke for five people for a weekend of craziness is enough to get you labelled a drug dealer with a longer sentence than a murderer. Intent to distribute charges are most of the time a load of BS. Prosecution doesn't even need to prove intent, just having the drugs on you is enough to charge you with the intent under the law.

And even then, the 30+ years you can get for dealing drugs, is excessive even for the people actually dealing drugs. Ignoring that prison is highly unlikely to stop from from dealing drugs at all once they get out (groups tend to respect members who've been to prison and not squealed, so really its almost a promotion). A new method needs to be derived to deal with dealers. What that punishment is though I have no idea. The simplist solution is to just legalize most drugs and tax them. Once they're out in the open and proper regulation in place, we might see a drop in use like we have with tobacco over the last few decades.

In the words of Stewie Griffon; Bring our boys home its an unwinnable war.

I'd actually agree with you there. It's also the byproduct of the implementation of "Mandatory Sentencing" & for-profit-prisons.

I can not begin to describe my disgust at these. How in the holy frelling crap did someone not think what would happen when this was okayed? Like the judge who was taking kick backs and sentencing kids to years in prison for stupid kiddy crap like fighting in school or mocking their principal?

Yeah... I wonder how accurate this is... but, you'll get the drift:

**LordofHats**

For profit drivens started for several reasons, the drug war being near the top of the list. I don't think US politicians realized at the time just how much of a quagmire it would become, how many people it would really involve. A huge number of the US prison population is in prison on drug related offenses.

As for Whembly's chart, I don't disagree with his position but it is also worth pointing out that the advance of forensic science in the late 70's and early 80's played a huge role in the police's ability to better apprehend criminals, so some of the rise can be attributed to the mere improvement of investigative procedure. That said, I think that chart would be a hell of a lot smaller if the war on drugs ended.

**streamdragon**

LordofHats wrote:
For profit drivens started for several reasons, the drug war being near the top of the list. I don't think US politicians realized at the time just how much of a quagmire it would become, how many people it would really involve. A huge number of the US prison population is in prison on drug related offenses.

As for Whembly's chart, I don't disagree with his position but it is also worth pointing out that the advance of forensic science in the late 70's and early 80's played a huge role in the police's ability to better apprehend criminals, so some of the rise can be attributed to the mere improvement of investigative procedure. That said, I think that chart would be a hell of a lot smaller if the war on drugs ended.

According to the Justice Policy Institute's data, 1 in 4 prisoners are in jail for drug related charges.

Some of the numbers here are a little disturbing.

**Breotan**

cincydooley wrote:
How about we just decriminalize marijuana and then tax the feth out of it....

The problem is, you leave the black market (which isn't taxed) intact and they (drug pushers) undercut the legitimate business and still provide all the other illegal drugs. Whole thing winds up being a wash.

**Ouze**

The cigarette industry seems to have done well enough despite the presence of bootleg cigarettes; their real enemy has been evolving social mores. How many people buy backyard moonshine because it's cheaper?

**LordofHats**

streamdragon wrote:

According to the Justice Policy Institute's data, 1 in 4 prisoners are in jail for drug related charges

I wanted to say 33% but I wasn't sure. Good thing I kept that misconception to myself

1/4 is a lot of prisoners and a lot of money. Crazy stuff.

**dogma**

Breotan wrote:
The problem is, you leave the black market (which isn't taxed) intact and they (drug pushers) undercut the legitimate business and still provide all the other illegal drugs. Whole thing winds up being a wash.

How many people in the US purchase bootleg alcohol?

Given the option of paying more for a product that is known to be safe, and less for a product that isn't I suspect that many (if not most) people will opt for the former; which will necessarily restrict the revenue stream of illegal providers/producers. Indeed, if you can drive the price of selling a particular product down far enough (through a combination of law enforcement and low prices), you can make the price of selling it illicitly unprofitable.

Granted, in the case of pot, this would take a few years as domestic production would need time to develop. But once accomplished illicit providers would be left with other, less socially acceptable drugs which wouldn't necessarily be in higher demand because of the legalization of pot*.

*Except possibly cocaine, but that's reasonably well accepted within certain parts of society as it is.

**LordofHats**

The problem is, you leave the black market (which isn't taxed) intact and they (drug pushers) undercut the legitimate business and still provide all the other illegal drugs. Whole thing winds up being a wash.

Reverse that. The legal business will undercut the illegal. Part of why drugs are expensive now is because the dealers price gouge because they're unregulated and solve competition problems with violence. They spend vast sums on bribes and hiding their business from the cops. A legal business will assuredly be able to sell at much lower prices than the illegal.

**Ouze**

dogma wrote:
Granted, in the case of pot, this would take a few years as domestic production would need time to develop.

With the additional complication that many of the states that legalized Marijuana also included a allowance for growing x number of plants legally for personal use, and any moron with $2 of soil and a $5 clamp lamp can grow it in their house (it's far easier to grow than any other vegetable I've ever grown including tomatoes).

I suspect that the black market in such states will not meaningfully exist within a year or two.

**Albatross**

LordofHats wrote:
The problem is, you leave the black market (which isn't taxed) intact and they (drug pushers) undercut the legitimate business and still provide all the other illegal drugs. Whole thing winds up being a wash.

Reverse that. The legal business will undercut the illegal. Part of why drugs are expensive now is because the dealers price gouge because they're unregulated and solve competition problems with violence. They spend vast sums on bribes and hiding their business from the cops. A legal business will assuredly be able to sell at much lower prices than the illegal.

Word. I'm given to understand that weed is roughly about as expensive to grow as tomatoes. It's cheap. That being said, I won't claim to be an expert in anything other than the smoking of it...

**d-usa**

When did the "war on drugs" start?

**djones520**

1971 I believe.