Commutation for ? offenders?
Options
MarcusGarvey
Members Posts: 4,569 ✭✭✭✭✭
Interesting read at Slate.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/obama_needs_to_fix_the_? _? _sentencing_gap.html
I'll post some excerpts cuz I know yall hate long reads.
"Today, roughly 30,000 federal inmates, representing approximately 15 percent of the entire federal prison population, are serving time for ? ? offenses. And more than 80 percent of those men and women are African-American.
In 2010, recognizing the racial bias reflected in these drug laws and the profound impact they had on African-American offenders and communities, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act to significantly reduce the penalties for ? ? offenses. The new law’s preamble acknowledges the injustices associated with the now-rescinded sentencing laws, and states that it is designed “to restore fairness to Federal ? sentencing.”
Congress, however, did not make the new law retroactive. So it does not formally apply to those convicted and sentenced before the date it was signed into law, although, somewhat ironically, the U.S. Sentencing Commission—the federal agency responsible for developing fair sentencing guidelines—was permitted to make its guidelines retroactive in a way that could help some of the more serious ? offenders serving the longest sentencing terms under the old law. Consequently, more than 5,000 ? defendants who were among the least culpable of drug offenders—real men and women with real families—still languish behind bars serving excessively long mandatory prison terms imposed under a statutory scheme that’s been repealed largely because of its racially discriminatory impact.
Federal courts have been powerless to provide relief because Congress never expressly authorized them to do so. Recently, one divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found a way to correct that. While conceding that Congress had no discriminatory intent when it passed the original ? laws, those judges said that they could not ignore their real world impact in applying the new act. For example, they noted that from 1988 to 1995 not a single white person was charged with ? -related crimes in 17 states, including major cities such as Boston, Denver, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, and Los Angeles. The panel further observed that in 2010, before passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, almost 4,000 defendants, mostly African-American, received mandatory minimum sentences for ? crimes.
The Constitution expressly gives President Obama the power to secure justice for the thousands of inmates serving prison terms longer than they would receive if they committed their crimes today—sentence commutation. The president’s use of this broad and unlimited constitutional “power to grant reprieves and pardons” would correct a fundamental injustice. After all, what’s appropriate for today’s ? offender is surely appropriate for yesterday’s offender as well. Don’t forget that when the now-rejected laws were first adopted in the late 1980s, Congress believed ? was instantly addicting. Lawmakers feared a generation of “? babies” would plague the nation for years to come, and perceived direct links between ? use and violent crime.
Everyone knows the powder-? differential is ? , this is something I think he should do on the last day of his Presidency to "disproportionately" helps those caught under guidelines that have been revised.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/obama_needs_to_fix_the_? _? _sentencing_gap.html
I'll post some excerpts cuz I know yall hate long reads.
"Today, roughly 30,000 federal inmates, representing approximately 15 percent of the entire federal prison population, are serving time for ? ? offenses. And more than 80 percent of those men and women are African-American.
In 2010, recognizing the racial bias reflected in these drug laws and the profound impact they had on African-American offenders and communities, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act to significantly reduce the penalties for ? ? offenses. The new law’s preamble acknowledges the injustices associated with the now-rescinded sentencing laws, and states that it is designed “to restore fairness to Federal ? sentencing.”
Congress, however, did not make the new law retroactive. So it does not formally apply to those convicted and sentenced before the date it was signed into law, although, somewhat ironically, the U.S. Sentencing Commission—the federal agency responsible for developing fair sentencing guidelines—was permitted to make its guidelines retroactive in a way that could help some of the more serious ? offenders serving the longest sentencing terms under the old law. Consequently, more than 5,000 ? defendants who were among the least culpable of drug offenders—real men and women with real families—still languish behind bars serving excessively long mandatory prison terms imposed under a statutory scheme that’s been repealed largely because of its racially discriminatory impact.
Federal courts have been powerless to provide relief because Congress never expressly authorized them to do so. Recently, one divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found a way to correct that. While conceding that Congress had no discriminatory intent when it passed the original ? laws, those judges said that they could not ignore their real world impact in applying the new act. For example, they noted that from 1988 to 1995 not a single white person was charged with ? -related crimes in 17 states, including major cities such as Boston, Denver, Chicago, Miami, Dallas, and Los Angeles. The panel further observed that in 2010, before passage of the Fair Sentencing Act, almost 4,000 defendants, mostly African-American, received mandatory minimum sentences for ? crimes.
The Constitution expressly gives President Obama the power to secure justice for the thousands of inmates serving prison terms longer than they would receive if they committed their crimes today—sentence commutation. The president’s use of this broad and unlimited constitutional “power to grant reprieves and pardons” would correct a fundamental injustice. After all, what’s appropriate for today’s ? offender is surely appropriate for yesterday’s offender as well. Don’t forget that when the now-rejected laws were first adopted in the late 1980s, Congress believed ? was instantly addicting. Lawmakers feared a generation of “? babies” would plague the nation for years to come, and perceived direct links between ? use and violent crime.
Everyone knows the powder-? differential is ? , this is something I think he should do on the last day of his Presidency to "disproportionately" helps those caught under guidelines that have been revised.