U.S. to expand clemency criteria for drug offenders

Sensitive subject here.

Sounds like the "Justice" Department is tweeking the criteria for recommendations to the President about clemency for drug offense convicts.

Apparently the whole idea has sparked a boat load of requests.

The POTUS does have the "authority" and "power" to reduce sentences for Federal convictions.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department will widen the criteria it uses to decide which drug offenders to recommend to the president for clemency, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Monday.

The department expects thousands of drug offenders currently serving time to be eligible for reduced sentences under the new clemency guidelines and it will prepare to review an influx of applications, Holder said in a video address.

Under U.S. law, the president can reduce sentences or pardon Americans serving sentences for federal crimes. The Justice Department will now recommend more candidates for the president's consideration.

U.S. to expand clemency criteria for drug offenders


More election year tactics?

Or is some of this actually justified?

a reply to: xuenchen

I think he's worried about getting busted his own damn self...

That out of the way...it's election year jitters. He's trying to scramble to find new sources for the Dem voting base.

The ones he's previously counted on, are crumbling as the reality of what he's actually done, as opposed to what he said he would do, in the last 6 years...is coming to light.

I fully expect him to start harping on the benefits of vegan diets, while scrounging for votes for his stumbling party.

Des

a reply to: xuenchen

As long as skin color and ethnicity won't be used in their so called "determination process" I do not have a problem with people whom have done nothing more than commit a crime against themselves being released!

But I think we can all look into the crystal ball and realize the real meaning behind this empty rhetoric.

I see no problem with this if a person was busted in a non violent crime why shouldn't this be applied to them? They wasn't hurting anyone. If they are busted for just possession they were not a threat to society. If they want to do drugs that's their problem.

So when they start busting other people like militia members, protesters, and other speak out against government people they will have more room to make more profit for our for profit prison system.

This hinges on how they decide to define "non violent".

One argument is some non violent acts lead to violent acts later or may have been a result of a prior violent crime by an unrelated party.

IDK.

We'll see soon how they write the "legal" terms.

originally posted by: xuenchen
This hinges on how they decide to define "non violent".

One argument is some non violent acts lead to violent acts later or may have been a result of a prior violent crime by an unrelated party.

IDK.

We'll see soon how they write the "legal" terms.

Not far from the minority report when people are convicted of something they haven't done yet aren't we?

Honestly, if a person doesn't hurt anyone then is there really a crime? Seems to me that all the stuff that the bankers have done to hurt the American Society should be more of a crime than someone that had a few grams of a plant in his pocket.

originally posted by: buster2010
I see no problem with this if a person was busted in a non violent crime why shouldn't this be applied to them? They wasn't hurting anyone. If they are busted for just possession they were not a threat to society. If they want to do drugs that's their problem.

So when they start busting other people like militia members, protesters, and other speak out against government people they will have more room to make more profit for our for profit prison system.

As much as I can't believe I'm agreeing with you on any subject matter, I am.

But, I think you'll find this is a ploy for the much needed votes due to the failure of Obamacare.
Obama's Administration is Pandering to the less educated watcher's of the local media.
I'm sure you'll find very few if any inmates in the Federal System locked up for personal use with just a few ounces or grams of their drug of choice on them.
More like a few acre's or bales or kilo's that are in transport for sale or processing and they we're more than likely armed felons when they were caught.
I believe it's for the new people that are Pro Obama to jump on and we already know they don't really investigate before they report, so,,,,, it's all about the Dem's and their poor showings in the polls.

Just saying, That's My Humble Opinion

a reply to: xuenchen

I think the clemency criteria and interview should be as follows:

Interviewer: Did you commit a violent crime or a crime that involved a victim and personal loss?
Prisoner: Nope.
Interviewer: Ok. See you later. Continue doing a good job not hurting people.

And that should be it.

a reply to: xuenchen

Rand Paul has been active on reducing and changing mandatory minimum sentencing.

Attorney General Eric Holder and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) don’t share a lot in common, but they agree on at least one thing: reducing mandatory minimums for nonviolent drug offenders.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Or is some of this actually justified?

Sequester-esque scrambling to fond some budget cutting areas that don't snip into the programs that ensure a "kept" voter pool?

a reply to: xuenchen

I like how he nipped the "kids" comment quickly. Quit using that crap. Parent your d@mn kids and you won't have to worry about what others do in THEIR home.

This is a step in the right direction.

How bout this? Don't charge them with a crime in the first place. Problem solved.

Cheap and Cheesy politics with more damage done to what our nation is founded on for the idea of representative Government. Not a Government of One.

When Obama leaves that office in a few years...with how this has been done and is being done...nothing will have fundamentally changed. Tolerances and clemency are just that. Tolerances and one shot clemency. It's changed nothing.

I may even agree with the sentiment surrounding what this is all about ...but if the next bunch in 3 years doesn't? Again. Nothing ACTUALLY changed. Just 'policy'...which is politics, because it lasts only as long as the political appointees who agree with it do.

I'd support a push for real changes in federal law and especially on mandatory minimums (for a variety of crimes). Not just feel good measures to score votes...while nothing changes.

If this is only at the federal level then it is much ado 'bout nothing.

The real fix for small time non-violent drug offenders is needed
at the state and local level.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Not just feel good measures to score votes...while nothing changes.

One of the things that scares me the most is the potential for changes in the other direction, as we've seen in the past 5 years. Obama ran on a platform of change and, naive or not, a lot of his supporters believed it. There was a sweeping feeling that issues with GWB in office were going to change in exactly the opposite direction from how Obama has actually changed them. The Patriot Act, for example, was primarily directed away from the USA and away from Americans with Bush in office. The NSA was wiretapping and amassing data on foreign communications. The same people who screamed about that being unconstitutional and demanded Constitutional protections applied to EVERYONE when dealing with the NSA and the Patriot Act have been eerily silent (almost appeased, in fact) as Obama's change has consisted of turning the Patriot Act inward.

Now look at this drug sentencing issue. Is it that much of a stretch to imagine a politican running on a platform of "sentencing reform" and then reforming in the opposite direction, i.e. naming drug users as "domestic terrorists" using Bush's tenuous "drug users support terrorists in the drug's country of origin" argument?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Now that is a disturbing thought. A few years ago I would have laughed and wondered what you were thinking...but that was many examples in the past for seeing how such a thing could happen and be intended long before we caught wind of the change actually starting.

I've generally figured the sentencing laws and core issues behind them would be the trump card or ace in the hole to play when the really BIG distraction was required and people needed to be pumped and artificially happy for awhile, maybe to miss or not care about something else. Perhaps, the right things, for exactly the wrong reasons here.

I hadn't considered your new set of bad reasons.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Not just feel good measures to score votes...while nothing changes.

One of the things that scares me the most is the potential for changes in the other direction, as we've seen in the past 5 years. Obama ran on a platform of change and, naive or not, a lot of his supporters believed it. There was a sweeping feeling that issues with GWB in office were going to change in exactly the opposite direction from how Obama has actually changed them. The Patriot Act, for example, was primarily directed away from the USA and away from Americans with Bush in office. The NSA was wiretapping and amassing data on foreign communications. The same people who screamed about that being unconstitutional and demanded Constitutional protections applied to EVERYONE when dealing with the NSA and the Patriot Act have been eerily silent (almost appeased, in fact) as Obama's change has consisted of turning the Patriot Act inward.

Now look at this drug sentencing issue. Is it that much of a stretch to imagine a politican running on a platform of "sentencing reform" and then reforming in the opposite direction, i.e. naming drug users as "domestic terrorists" using Bush's tenuous "drug users support terrorists in the drug's country of origin" argument?

Those thoughts made me more paranoid than I already am!

What is sad, is most likely you just hit the nail on the

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department will widen the criteria it uses to decide which drug offenders to recommend to the president for clemency, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Monday. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well that is a GD joke.

So I guess it sucks for those who have been convicted of owning a gun 'they shouldn't' have since that is a non violent felony.

Just 'pardon' those with drug offenses !

Just for snips and giggles here.

America, It's Time For An Intervention: Drug Overdoses Are Killing More People Than Cars, Guns

Sure there's nothing wrong with that picture.

'Nothing' at all!

originally posted by: neo96

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department will widen the criteria it uses to decide which drug offenders to recommend to the president for clemency, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Monday. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well that is a GD joke.

So I guess it sucks for those who have been convicted of owning a gun 'they shouldn't' have since that is a non violent felony.

Just 'pardon' those with drug offenses !

Just for snips and giggles here.

America, It's Time For An Intervention: Drug Overdoses Are Killing More People Than Cars, Guns

Sure there's nothing wrong with that picture.

'Nothing' at all!

Isn't freedom about doing what you want with your own damn body without government interference?

I suppose all those people whom wanted to die and were prevented from doing so would be cool with you if they jumped on the disability OR welfare roles????

Make up your mind Neo!

BTW? Aren't you exaggerating the premise of this topic? You know damn well no one has overdosed on what the drug this topic is about!

a reply to: xuenchen

Immediately pardon all non-violent drug offenders. Then MAYBE Ill vote for you.