TexasCHLforum.com

Obama in his wisdom along with Holder decided as many as 200,000 convicts were unfairly convicted and will soon be released.

That these convicts were involved in crime was not mentioned.

Source?

Fox news.

Abraham wrote:Fox news.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2 ... s-federal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Meh...most of the offenders are drug offenders that were sentenced under mandatory guidelines set up during the well thought out (cough, failed, cough) War on Drugs.


I would like to see first time violent offenders start getting 2X the sentence and first time drug offenders 1/2.

Abraham wrote:Obama in his wisdom along with Holder decided as many as 200,000 convicts were unfairly convicted and will soon be released.
That these convicts were involved in crime was not mentioned.

Spin. They were all fairly convicted. My understanding is that Obama wants to give "fair" access to clemency, rather than provide clemency to those with the means and influence to get their pardon on the presidents desk.
My understanding is also that these are all non-violent drug convictions, often sentenced under mandatory minimums where judges had no choice.
This is largely part of the war on drugs. If you want to continue to spend you tax dollars on a "war" that has done more harm than good, then by all means continue to provide partial information about Obama freeing the convicts. Personally, I'd rather focus on locking up real bad guys.

This is a very difficult topic as the latest sentencing guidlines are not as tough as the old ones so that someone arrested today for the same crime will not go to jail for as long a period as someone did in the past. The other issue of course is that many people sentenced plea bargained to a lesser crime and really are serious bad guys. Finally, are these really non-violent minor criminals? What if someone sells a teen a dose of heroin and the teen dies of an overdose? Any different than just shooting or stabbing the teen? If we want legal drugs than lets sell them in state run stores, tax them like alcohol and tobacco and eliminate the drug lords. We will never stop substance abuse as humans by their very nature will seek it out.

They all will be eligible for obamacarecare.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:They all will be eligible for obamacarecare.
Anygunanywhere

As are we. If you mean "free" subsidized healthcare, that's probably true also as they have no effective income. In prison, the healthcare is probably worse, but so is their taxable income.

I won't argue that violent felons, or bad guys that plead down to lesser charges should be released. I'm hoping for a net win here - the war on drugs has not been a good thing for the country. I don't promote drug use, I'm just tired of spending billions of dollars on something that is highly ineffective and causes more problems than it solves... It diverts resources from real problems.

I am proudly a staunch conservative. I believe that prison inmates should be subjected to chain gangs and hard labor. I dont have a lot of answers, but we need to seriously do something different regarding our children & the war on drugs.

My wife has had many inmates work for her as she is an administrator with TDCJ. She trust the words of an inmate about like she does Harry Reid; and she doesnt put much faith in sad stories of innocence....but during her 20 year career she has witnessed first hand that society has sentenced many of our children to a life of damnation due to drug sentencing guidelines.

Once these kids are exposed to a few years existing with the underbelly of society, they are on the road to never becoming a productive member of society. They lose so much and the vast majority will never find a decent job. They are ruined for life.

Our kids are going to make dumb mistakes & some with very life altering consequences. We need to make sure that the life altering consequences are just and equitable.

Apparently here are some of the qualification guidelines:

To qualify, prisoners must have already served 10 years of their sentence for a nonviolent crime that would have been prosecuted or sentenced differently today. They must also have no significant ties to larger crime organizations, have a good record in prison, and be free of a lengthy criminal record aside from the crime they're currently serving time for.

Apparently this is mopping up after many of the mandatory minimum sentence guidelines got changed (support on both parties).

Sounds reasonable to me, but if this impacts a large group of people, we'll find a few examples of why this wasn't a good idea.

cb1000rider wrote:Apparently here are some of the qualification guidelines:

To qualify, prisoners must have already served 10 years of their sentence for a nonviolent crime that would have been prosecuted or sentenced differently today. They must also have no significant ties to larger crime organizations, have a good record in prison, and be free of a lengthy criminal record aside from the crime they're currently serving time for.

Apparently this is mopping up after many of the mandatory minimum sentence guidelines got changed (support on both parties).

Sounds reasonable to me, but if this impacts a large group of people, we'll find a few examples of why this wasn't a good idea.

Actually, I'm mostly OK with those guidelines. But there are a few kinds of non-violent prisoners who are SO deviously immoral and broken that I think they should die in prison......Bernie Madoff for instance.....people that simply wiped out the financial solvency of thousands of the elderly and reduced them to poverty for the rest of their lives. A guy like that deserves to die in prison, no matter how many years it takes. If he ever gets out, his parole should require him to mop the floors in a hospice for the rest of his life.

rotor wrote:What if someone sells a teen a dose of heroin and the teen dies of an overdose? Any different than just shooting or stabbing the teen?

Yes, there is a vast difference. The teenager made a voluntary choice to buy the heroin and to ingest it. I'm presuming that in your analogy that the same teen would not be paying someone to shoot or stab him, nor would he volunteer to be shot or stabbed. The difference is volition. Even teenagers are aware of the dangers of buying and using heroin. It's a choice. Teenagers also overdose on Acetaminophen and die as a result and the dangers of Acetaminophen are far less known to teenagers than the dangers of heroin. Unless the person has been deliberately misinformed about what is being ingested it is his responsibility not to overdose.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:Apparently here are some of the qualification guidelines:

To qualify, prisoners must have already served 10 years of their sentence for a nonviolent crime that would have been prosecuted or sentenced differently today. They must also have no significant ties to larger crime organizations, have a good record in prison, and be free of a lengthy criminal record aside from the crime they're currently serving time for.

Apparently this is mopping up after many of the mandatory minimum sentence guidelines got changed (support on both parties).

Sounds reasonable to me, but if this impacts a large group of people, we'll find a few examples of why this wasn't a good idea.

Actually, I'm mostly OK with those guidelines. But there are a few kinds of non-violent prisoners who are SO deviously immoral and broken that I think they should die in prison......Bernie Madoff for instance.....people that simply wiped out the financial solvency of thousands of the elderly and reduced them to poverty for the rest of their lives. A guy like that deserves to die in prison, no matter how many years it takes. If he ever gets out, his parole should require him to mop the floors in a hospice for the rest of his life.

Add John Corizine to that list.

Jim Beaux wrote:I am proudly a staunch conservative. I believe that prison inmates should be subjected to chain gangs and hard labor. I dont have a lot of answers, but we need to seriously do something different regarding our children & the war on drugs.

My wife has had many inmates work for her as she is an administrator with TDCJ. She trust the words of an inmate about like she does Harry Reid; and she doesnt put much faith in sad stories of innocence....but during her 20 year career she has witnessed first hand that society has sentenced many of our children to a life of damnation due to drug sentencing guidelines.

Once these kids are exposed to a few years existing with the underbelly of society, they are on the road to never becoming a productive member of society. They lose so much and the vast majority will never find a decent job. They are ruined for life.

Our kids are going to make dumb mistakes & some with very life altering consequences. We need to make sure that the life altering consequences are just and equitable.

And all in a supposedly free country to stop people from ingesting a substance into their own bodies. People are killed over ingesting a plant. The drugs laws aren't just absurd, they're immoral.

hmmmmm can they be voters?