It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
At what would appear to be a Richard Nixon or Rudy Giuliani moment, Republicans are partnering with Barack Obama to respond like George McGovern.
“Over the past several months, law enforcement officers across our country have been shot at, killed without provocation, too often simply because they wear a badge. Violent crime and murders have increased across the country at almost alarming rates in some areas. Drug use and overdoses are occurring and dramatically increasing. It is against this backdrop that we are considering a bill, or will be, to cut prison sentences for drug traffickers and even other violent criminals, including those currently in federal prisons, reducing their sentences.
to cut prison sentences for drug traffickers and even other violent criminals
Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, touched off a firestorm of criticism by claiming that catastrophic climate events are in store. In a speech given to the insurers group, Lloyds, Mr. Carney stated that “the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors”. The Bank of England apparently feels it can state unequivocally both the timing and magnitude of climate events well into the future.
So, let’s look at Governor Carney’s claims and how they stand up.
The guys who carry AKs and SKs.
originally posted by: InnerPeace2012a reply to: StallionDuck
In the general scheme of things, there is plot alright, and it's not me who thinks there is.
originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: StallionDuck
The guys who carry AKs and SKs.
Do you have a link to more information about that? It was my understanding that the sentence reform being discussed is for non-violent offenders who got caught up in minimum sentencing guidelines.
I think this link has a little more reliable information on what is actually being discussed.
Within the category of cases covered by subsection (b), where the conduct involved in the undischarged
term of imprisonment is related to the federal offense conduct, the Commission considered whether the
benefit of subsection (b) should continue to be limited to cases in which the offense conduct related to the
undischarged term of imprisonment resulted in a Chapter Two or Three increase. The Commission
determined that this limitation added complexity to the guidelines and may lead to unwarranted
disparities. For example, a federal drug trafficking defendant who is serving an undischarged state term
of imprisonment for a small amount of a controlled substance that is relevant conduct to the federal
offense may not receive the benefit of subsection (b) because the amount of the controlled substance may
not be sufficient to increase the offense level under Chapter Two. In contrast, a federal drug trafficking
defendant who is serving an undischarged state term of imprisonment for a large amount of a controlled
substance that is relevant conduct to the federal offense may be more likely to receive the benefit of
subsection (b) because the amount of the controlled substance may be more likely to increase the offense
level under Chapter Two. The amendment amends §5G1.3(b) to require a court to adjust the sentence
and impose concurrent sentences in any case in which the prior offense is relevant conduct under the
provisions of §1B1.3(a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3), regardless of whether the conduct from the prior offense
formed the basis for a Chapter Two or Chapter Three increase. The Commission determined that this
amendment will simplify the operation of §5G1.3(b) and will also address concerns that the requirement
that the relevant conduct increase the offense level under Chapters Two or Three is somewhat arbitrary.
Second, the amendment addresses cases in which there is an anticipated, but not yet imposed, state term
of imprisonment that is relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction under the provisions of
subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct). This amendment creates a new