Posts Tagged ‘Early Release’

 

FEDERAL INMATES TO BE RELEASED

FEDERAL INMATES TO BE RELEASED

Earlier this year A federal agency unanimously approved a proposal to release approximately  46,000 inmates with drug convictions from prison early. The original amendment unanimously passed in April adjusted the guidelines that federal judges consult when sentencing defendants. When a mandatory minimum sentence doesn’t apply to a case (as it often does) and bind a judge to an exact sentence, the judge turns to a set of guidelines known as the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. These guidelines use the same overly punitive calculus that is the basis for mandatory minimum drug sentences, so both of these schemes have been held responsible for inflating the federal prison population by almost 800 percent percent since 1980.

The change by the U.S. Sentencing Commission only corrects a small part of this scheme. It amends a part of the guidelines that called for even longer sentences than comparable mandatory minimums. But even that small change will likely reduce the sentences of tens of thousands of drug prisoners. Going forward, the Commission estimated the change could affect some 70 percent of federal drug trafficking defendants.
The retroactive part of this amendment will not be automatic. To have their sentences reduced, those 46,000 inmates eligible for sentencing reductions would have to go before a judge, who would decide whether to grant them all or some of the sentencing reduction in the new guidelines. If all the judges granted the full reduction, inmates would see an average of 23 months shaved off their sentences, or 18.4 percent of their full sentence, according to Commission estimates (initial estimates also suggested more than 51,000 prisoners could be released. But the estimate was lowered at Friday’s meeting due to the delayed start date of November, 2015.).
This would also save the Bureau of Prisons the equivalent of 83,525 “bed years” (cost of housing one inmate for one year) over the course of many years. The Commission estimated that 395 of these inmates would die behind bars if they were not given this opportunity for early release.
These requests to reduce sentences would not come all at once. Some inmates — an estimated 8,000 — would be eligible to go before a judge immediately when the change goes into effect in 2015. But the remainder would become eligible to seek those sentencing reductions over a period of years, depending on when they were sentenced and the length of their original sentence. Although this would undoubtedly placed a burden on judges, those who testified before the Sentencing Commission in June on this issue called it courts’ “burden to bear” and that granting inmates retroactive relief is a “moral issue.”

WAR ON DRUGS?

WAR ON DRUGS?

In fact, many federal judges have expressed vocal outrage over schemes that bind them to sentencing low-level defendants like kingpins. That fundamental scheme hasn’t been changed by today’s fix. Since the mid-1980s, these drug sentencing laws have placed an over-emphasis on quantities of drugs rather than a defendant’s role in the crime. That means that a person involved in an offense that involved 50 grams of methamphetamine could get 40 years in prison, regardless of whether they served as mastermind of the deal or a low-level courier of money.
The Sentencing Commission and the U.S. Justice Department would both like to see this scheme changed. But for that, they have to wait for an act of Congress, since even the Sentencing Guidelines are tied to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. “The real solution rests with Congress, and we continue to support efforts there to reduce mandatory minimum penalties, consistent with our recent report finding that mandatory minimum penalties are often too severe and sweep too broadly in the drug context, often capturing lower-level players,” Saris said in January.
Two bipartisan bills to reform these laws are still pending in both houses of Congress.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole announced that the department would broaden the criteria for clemency, a move that is expected to lead to thousands of prisoners — most serving drug sentences — filing applications to President Barack Obama seeking to commute their sentences.

The changes are part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to modify sentencing laws, allowing for use of rehabilitation and other alternatives to deal with non-violent drug offenders and those who previously faced tough mandatory minimum sentences.

Attorney General Eric Holder previewed some of the changes Monday by announcing plans to assign more lawyers to handle an anticipated flood of clemency requests.

imagesClemency changes to free drug offenders

images (1)Obama commutes 8 crack cocaine cases

images (2)Obama commutes 8 crack sentences

Crack cocaine at heart of once-common sentencing disparity

“We are launching this clemency initiative in order to quickly and effectively identify appropriate candidates, candidates who have a clean prison record, do not present a threat to public safety, and were sentenced under out-of-date laws that have since been changed, and are no longer seen as appropriate,” Cole said at a news conference.

The clemency changes would be open to prisoners who have met a set of specific conditions: they must be low-level, non-violent offenders without a significant criminal history and must be serving a federal sentence that would likely be shorter if they were convicted today. They must have served at least 10 years of their sentence and have demonstrated good conduct in prison, with no history of violence before or during their prison term.

The pending changes are the latest step in an ongoing effort Holder calls “Smart on Crime,” which also seeks to remedy the once-common wide disparity in sentences handed down over powder versus crack cocaine, based on guidelines first enacted by Congress more than 25 years ago.

Earlier: Eric Holder seeks to cut mandatory minimum drug sentences

Of the more than 200,000 inmates in the federal prison system, some estimates show the new clemency criteria could apply to about 2,000 prisoners. But the number is likely to fall to perhaps hundreds after government lawyers review the applications.

The Justice Department says it doesn’t know how many people will end up qualifying because it depends on the applications and how they fit the new criteria. The President has final authority to decide who gets clemency.

Obama has been criticized by some civil rights groups for being stingy with his pardons and commutations. But many praised the Justice Department’s decision as a good initial step, including a coalition of groups working on sentencing guidelines.

The announcement “marks the beginning of the end of the age of mass incarceration,” said Jerry Cox, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “We must seize this historic opportunity to start the process of remedying decades of cruel and unnecessarily harsh sentencing policies.”

Cole also announced the appointment of Deborah Leff to lead the department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, which has come under fire for being slow to review a backlog of applications.

Cole said the department was setting up an online application system and working with pro-bono attorneys who will assist prisoners in their applications.

Mary Price, general counsel for the group Families Against Mandatory Minimums, which advocates for changes to drug sentencing laws, welcomed Cole’s announcement. “The doors of the Office of the Pardon Attorney have been closed to petitioners for too long. This announcement signals a truly welcome change; the culture of ‘no’ that has dominated that office is being transformed,” she said.

The push to relax sentencing laws has the support of some conservative Republican lawmakers, who believe it is a way to reduce spending on federal prisons and to use alternatives to incarceration to deal with drug problems. However, lawmakers want the changes to be made through Congress rather than through the president’s executive power.

“I hope President Obama is not seeking to change sentencing policy unilaterally. Congress, not the President, has authority to make sentencing policy. He should continue to work with Congress rather than once again going it alone, and I’m willing to work with the President on these issues.” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said this week.

Cole, in his remarks Wednesday, said the issue is one of fairness. “Older, stringent punishments that are out of line with sentences imposed under today’s laws erode people’s confidence in our criminal justice system, and I am confident that this initiative will go far to promote the most fundamental of American ideals — equal justice under law,” Cole said.

Three years ago, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act to address the larger issue of drug sentencing disparities. Sentencing guidelines provided for a 100-to-1 ratio between the penalties for crack cocaine offenses versus those for powdered cocaine, but the fair sentencing law reduced the disparity to 18-to-1.

 

The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently voted to apply reduced drug penalties retroactively to over 46,000 people serving excessive sentences for federal drug offenses — potentially reducing average prison terms by two years.

The vote reflects a historic shift in the nation’s approach to substance abuse. There’s an emerging consensus among both Republicans and Democrats that using the criminal justice system to address substance abuse is both too expensive and doesn’t work in terms of promoting public safety.  Policymakers of both parties are increasingly recognizing that the war on drugs has come at a ruinous cost for all Americans, but particularly for communities of color.

snitch

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A 96% CONVICTION RATE THANKS TO SNITCHES

SAMPLE 5K1 MOTION

For those of you who wants to know about what goes into to making a “SNITCH”, here is a crash course 101 in “Cooperating With The Government”. The average criminal doesn’t wake up in the morning thinking to himself, “Man, will this be the day I get bagged?” On the contrary, most individuals who circumvent the law have been doing so for so long that they feel invincible or entitled, for lack of a better word. So rather than hitting a lick and getting out, they try to make a career out of breaking the law. Which leads me to the question, “What goes into the making of a SNITCH?”

Is it genetic? Does it have anything to do with the up-bringing or has it become a Culture? Well, I don’t personally think anyone is predisposed to being a SNITCH and although up-bringing could, we can’t conclusively say that growing up in a rough part of town will make you a stand-up guy. History has shown us the toughest in the hood have danced with the devil, ONCE THE PARTY IS OVER” and everything is on the line. So have we become a nation of SNITCHES, well the government wants this to be a police state. Personally, if I came across a child being victimized it would be my civic duty by default of  being a member of the human race,  to do something. That goes for little old ladies, defenseless women, etc… But is there a line drawn when an adult of sound mind, decides he/she is going to break the law. For every action there is a reaction. “If you do the dirt wear the shirt!”

The incarceration rate in the United States in the highest in the world and based on the current overcrowding in the prison system,  I am sure that there will be a lot more individuals making deals to lessen their burden. This country currently holds 2.4 million people in prison, I’d say that the prosecutors intimidating  tactics are working. Going to trial is a right not a crime, but defendants who stand on their constitutional right to face their accuser receive a stiffer sentence than a defendant who’d plea guilty. Now don’t get me wrong not all pleas result in cooperation.

97 percent of drug defendants forgo their right to tr

images (62)

Stop Snitching! Is a campaign dedicated to silencing the government witnesses.

ial and plead out.

“Federal prosecutors routinely threaten extraordinarily severe prison sentences to coerce drug defendants into waiving their right to trial and pleading guilty,” the human rights group found. Looking specifically at drug cases (the primary filler of brimming U.S. prisons), “only 3 percent of U.S. drug defendants in federal cases chose to go to trial.” (see 5K1 Motion link above)

When it’s all said and done after the government executes its squeeze play, it takes a certain type of man to stand up under that type of pressure. And I don’t care what neighborhood you came from or what set you claim, when you’re a 21 year old walking into a federal courtroom and you’re told you won’t get out of jail for the next 35 years, wheels start to turn.  You know the sick game the federal courts play is that they never sentence a defendant to years.

images (71)

THE POLICE STATE IS GROWING WITHIN THE U.S.

The judge always sentences defendants to months. So if you’re not sharp, it may take a few days before you realize how much time the judge actually sentenced you to. Federal judges hand out sentences like 285 months, 348 months like breathing air. So forget what you heard about getting 5-years and doing 18 months. In the federal systems every defendant has to do 85% of their time regardless of the offense you committed.  Drug dealers…85%, Murders…85%, Violent Offenders 85%…, Child Pedophiles 85%…, Rapist 85%… and yes First Time Offenders 85%! For example if you’re sentenced to 60 months you are required to serve 51 months (And that includes good time).

But what’s all the hoopla about?  Adam turned state on Eve. Ha! Ha! Ha!  No really, on a serious note. A lot of old players said back in the day, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” But what those old guys didn’t face were mandatory minimum sentences and three strike rules. Shit I recall when I was growing up, my brother would go to jail all the time. He would do a little time and he’d be out of state prison.  After a few months he’d be working on his next caper. Then I had a homeboy picked up by the feds in the summer of 93 and we still haven’t seen or heard from him.

There is absolutely NO honor out there in the streets. If you fall you better believe you are going to hit the ground hard and often by yourself. No one is going to help your family, and you definitely can kiss your relationship goodbye. (Of course, there are exceptions to every rule)  There are men in federal prison who stood up and didn’t give a damn how much the feds offered them. They went to trial and said “BRING IT!” I take my hat off to those who believed in keeping their mouths shut. And on the same token, there are some women out there who have stood by their man faithfully while they are paying their so-called “debt to society.”  But we are not here to discuss the exception, we are here to deb into the alarming statics in the making of a SNITCH.

Just remember, “you never really know what you’d do in another person’s situation, unless you come face to face with his demons”.

Based on the numbers, the system is crawling with rats and they are not separated from the general population. As a matter of fact, they are no longer the minority they are the majority on compounds everywhere in the system. And although no one whats to admit it the numbers are staggering. The snitch culture is here and it doesn’t appear to be a fad.

RULE 35

Finally after it’s been said and done, once a defendant makes a deal with the government, the

images (72)

WHEN DID THE RAT BECOME A METAPHOR FOR THE SNITCH?

prosecutor has up to one year to file what is referred to as a “Rule 35” which in some cases means the defendant will get another reduction. Normally, these reduction are 12.5 percent each. Unless, of course your someone like SAMMY THE BULL.

Just keep in mind, there is always work at the post office… This is your man Maestro and I’m out!

Maestro Speaks

Maestro Speaks