U.S. to soften guidelines for drug sentences in face of US$80-billion a year costs an

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Meanwhile we in Canada, under Canada's not so new Govt are headed down the path that the US is abandoning.
Where in Canada, crime is at an all time low, Steve wants to fill the prisons.

U.S. to soften guidelines for drug sentences in face of US$80-billion a year costs and overcrowded prisons | National Post

Washington — The U.S. government plans to curb the “unsustainable” growth of its prison population by abandoning harsh mandatory sentences for drug offenders and releasing some elderly inmates.

Eric Holder, the Attorney General, said the United States could no longer afford US$80-billion a year, nor the “human and moral costs”, that come with holding the world’s largest number of prisoners.

“Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long and for no good law enforcement reason,” Mr. Holder told a legal conference in San Francisco Monday

“We cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation.”

The roughly 2-million inmates in the U.S. represent a quarter of the world’s prisoners, although America makes up only 5% of the global population. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the rate of incarceration, around six times higher than China’s, cannot be maintained.

Outlining a major shift in U.S. drug policy, Mr Holder said that non-violent drug offenders would no longer be charged with crimes that lead to automatic prison time known as “mandatory minimum sentences”.

Legislation passed at the height of the Eighties “War on Drugs” mandates a five-year prison sentence for possession of five grams of crack cocaine, a drug common in poor black communities.
Related

Jesse Kline: Learning a lesson from America’s failed war on drugs
Jonathan Kay: Canada should stand against Washington’s failed war on drugs

The law mandates the same sentence for possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine, a drug more often found in affluent white circles.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Could always do like some pisspot country like Pakistan, Iran, and Vietnam ..... just kill em.
The US has an extremely high conviction rate. The Prosecution lays more charges that Carter has liver pills and then offers a plea deal. The person charged realizes they only need to convict on one or 2 of the numerous charges and receive a sentence that is more that what is offered.

The 3 strikes law is a misuse of Justice.

John Edwards, Roger Clemens and America's Other One Percent - Barry Sussman - Open Salon
The Federal conviction rate in the United States of America has now reached the improbable rate of 99%. The vast majority of these convictions are achieved through plea bargaining as 97% of all federal cases end with a guilty plea being entered by the defendant. Approximately two thirds of the three percent who decide to brave trial find themselves convicted, thus achieving the mind-boggling conviction rate of 99%


USDOJ Search:conviction rate
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Eric Holder, the Attorney General, said the United States could no longer afford US$80-billion a year, nor the “human and moral costs”, that come with holding the world’s largest number of prisoners.

“Too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long and for no good law enforcement reason,” Mr. Holder told a legal conference in San Francisco Monday.


Aaaa-men!!!!
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
A number of factors are driving this.
Sentencing is unreasonable.
3 strikes has been shown to be a massive failure.
Costs are off the Richter scale and rising fast.


Yeah but with costs off the scale, so have profits been. I'm surprised this turned around.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
that's what I heard too, their prisons make money...how can that be?

Because they aren't run by the government. Government can take any viable money making enterprise and make it bleed cash. Not that I'm a fan of privatizing prisons per se, but the one thing they have in their favour is they are not the government.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Because they aren't run by the government. Government can take any viable money making enterprise and make it bleed cash. Not that I'm a fan of privatizing prisons per se, but the one thing they have in their favour is they are not the government.


and who is paying these private prisons for each inmate they have?
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
and who is paying these private prisons for each inmate they have?
It's still public money of course but it's about how a business looks at costs and the way a bureaucracy does. There is a hell of a lot of waste in government and most of it is needless. Again, not saying I endorse privatization of prisons, there are a lot of considerations besides financial costs.
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
140
63
Backwater, Ontario.
Someone should call el Primo and tell him he's took the wrong fork in the forkin road.

He'll believe that like he believes the jobless rate is rising.

Or climate change

Stick an addendum in the bible. That might get the stupid forkers attention.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Because they aren't run by the government. Government can take any viable money making enterprise and make it bleed cash. Not that I'm a fan of privatizing prisons per se, but the one thing they have in their favour is they are not the government.

The problem is.... no one should stand to financially profit from convictions or sentencing. The conviction rate, and the sentencing structure of the US for the last few years, has screamed of influence from those who stand to gain money from it, not from any attempt to actually make the country any safer.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,646
7,102
113
Washington DC
The problem is.... no one should stand to financially profit from convictions or sentencing. The conviction rate, and the sentencing structure of the US for the last few years, has screamed of influence from those who stand to gain money from it, not from any attempt to actually make the country any safer.
And you may believe the private prison industry will pour millions into defeating the parts of Holder's plan that require Congressional action.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,646
7,102
113
Washington DC
And you can guarantee that they'll do it by making voters fearful.
They would, usually, but this'll be more of a backroom deal. There'll be a certain amount of blather about "keeping dangerous criminals off our streets," but since this mostly calls for fairly technical revisions to existing law, they'll mostly just try to quietly strangle it in sub-committee procedural wrangling.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Because they aren't run by the government. Government can take any viable money making enterprise and make it bleed cash. Not that I'm a fan of privatizing prisons per se, but the one thing they have in their favour is they are not the government.

I've generally been against people capitalizing on people's misery, so I'm basically against privately run prisons, except for possibly the worst cases like Bernardo and Pickton. But even those guys could cause problems with it.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I've generally been against people capitalizing on people's misery, so I'm basically against privately run prisons, except for possibly the worst cases like Bernardo and Pickton. But even those guys could cause problems with it.

Even if you opened a prison for 'the worst', then you create incentive for people to push for a 'the worst' conviction, rather than letting justice unfold.

I will gladly pay my share to keep Bernardo and Pickton in prison, even if the gov mismanages it.