Let’s have a discussion…Shall we? What is your take on the current way the criminal justice system, systematically target Blacks. Is it just by “chance” an alarming number of White Officers are gunning down young Black boys in the streets? Or is it just my imagination…Running away with me?
NUMBERS DON’T LIE!
I felt compelled to post the two YouTube videos on the topic of race playing a major role in the disproportionate statistics as they relate to the number of white males incarcerated opposed to black males. In the interest of peace and communication, I preempted this topic with the supporting facts and figures for us to rely on. In general most people tend to argue about topics they know very little about. For example, I have been in situations where I wasted my time arguing with a colleague about the theory of (2 + 2) not equaling four. I would sit there; patiently, relying solely on reasoning to console me. But after about an hour the premise of their argument would to reduce to absurdity. I was often disturbed by their vein attempt to rationalize their proposition. The same argument could be presented; “Is the glass half empty or is it half full?” Finally I realized after studying the Philosophical Logic of Arguments that we can sometimes get caught up in the Rhetorical dynamics of a subject. Simply put a valid argument doesn’t have to be sound, but sound arguments have to be valid.
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.
“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candidates who have a clean prison record, do not present a threat to public safety, and were sentenced under out-of-date laws that have since been changed, and are no longer seen as appropriate,” Cole said at a news conference.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.
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.
1. The Dim Bulbs Rule. As per Congress, of course, for issuing an EDICT to phase out the incandescent light bulbs on which the world has relied for more than a century. With the deadline looming in 2012, Americans by the millions spent the past year pressing lawmakers to lift the ban which, contrary to eco-ideology, will kill more American jobs than create “green” ones. (Congress evidently overlooked the fact that the vast majority of fluorescent bulbs are manufactured in China.) The 2012 appropriations bill barred the use of funds to enforce the regulation, but it remains in law.
2. The Obamacare Chutzpah Rule. The past year was marked by a slew of competing court rulings on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the cornerstone of Obamacare. The law requires U.S. citizens to obtain health insurance or face financial penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Never before has the federal government attempted to force all Americans to purchase a product or service. To allow this regulatory overreach to stand would undermine fundamental constitutional constraints on government powers and curtail individual liberties to an unprecedented degree.
3. The Nationalization of Internet Networks Rule. Regulations that took effect on November 1 prohibit owners of broadband networks from differentiating among various content in managing Internet transmissions. (In other words, the Federal Coercion Communications Commission effectively declared the broadband networks to be government-regulated utilities.) The FCC imposed the “network neutrality” rule despite explicit opposition from Congress and a federal court ruling against it. The rule threatens to undermine network investment and increase online congestion.
4. The Equine Equality Rule. As of March 15(the Ides of March, no less), hotels, restaurants, airlines, and the like became obliged to modify “policies, practices, or procedures” to accommodate miniature horses as service animals. According to the Department of Justice, which administers the rule, miniature horses are a “viable alternative” to dogs for individuals with allergies or for observant Muslims and others whose religious beliefs preclude canine accompaniment.
5. The Smash Potatoes Regulation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed stricter nutrition standards that would prohibit school lunch ladies from serving more than one cup per week of potatoes per student. Instead, schools would be required to provide more dark green, orange, and dry bean varieties (think kale) in order to foster vegetable diversity. The cafeteria mandate will affect more than 98,000 elementary and secondary schools at a cost exceeding $3.4 billion in the next four years.
6. The Bring on the Blackouts Rule. The EPA is proposing to force power plants to reduce mercury by 90 percent within three years—at an estimated cost of $11 billion annually. A significant number of coal-fired plants will actually exceed the standard—by shutting down altogether. Indeed, grid operators, along with 27 states, are warning that the overly stringent regulations will threaten the reliability of the electricity system and dramatically increase power costs. Just like candidate Obama promised.
7. The Wal-Mart Windfall Amendment. One of hundreds of new regulations dictated by the Dodd–Frank financial regulation statute requires the Federal Reserve to regulate the fees that financial institutions may charge retailers for processing debit card purchases. The prospect of losing more than $6 billion in annual revenue is prompting financial institutions to hike fees on a variety of banking services to make up for the much smaller payments from stores. Thus, consumers are picking up the tab for retailers’ big regulatory score.
8. The Plumbing Police Rule. The U.S. Department of Energy began preparations for tightening the water efficiency standards on urinals. It’s all spelled out in excruciating detail in the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which also regulates the efficiency of toilets, faucets, and showers. And refrigerators and freezers, air conditioners, water heaters, furnaces, dishwashers, clothes washers and dryers, ovens and ranges, pool heaters, television sets, and anything else the Energy Secretary deems as electrically profligate. (Urinals also are regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which requires at least one urinal for every 40 workers at a construction site for companies with less than 200 employees and one for every 50 workers where more than 200 are employed. The Americans with Disabilities Act also delineates the proper dimensions and placement of bowls.)
9. The Chill the Economy Regulation. The EPA issued four interrelated rules governing emissions from some 200,000 boilers nationwide at an estimated capital cost of $9.5 billion. These boilers burn natural gas, fuel oil, coal, biomass (e.g., wood), refinery gas, or other gas to produce steam, which is used to generate electricity or provide heat for factories and other industrial and institutional facilities. Under the so-called Boiler MACT, factories, restaurants, schools, churches, and even farms would be required to conduct emissions testing and comply with standards of control that vary by boiler size, feedstock, and available technologies. The stringency and cost of the new regulations provoked an outpouring of protest, including 21 governors and more than 100 Members of Congress. On May 18, the EPA published a notice of postponement in the Federal Register,but the regulations remain on the books.
10. The Unions Rule Rule. New rules require government contractors to give first preference in hiring to the workers of the company that lost the contract. Tens of thousands of companies will be affected, with compliance costs running into the tens of millions of dollars—costs ultimately borne by taxpayers. The rule effectively ensures that a non-unionized contractor cannot replace a unionized one. That’s because any new contractor will be obliged to hire its predecessors’ unionized workers and thus be forced by the “Successorship Doctrine” to bargain with the union(s).
Neither the surge of influx of children crossing the border into the United States nor the legislation to do something about the immigration minors is enough for our government to rely on bi-partisan politics as a solution to the problem . Under current law a child apprehended entering into this Country will not be sent back to their respective country until they have had a hearing. In most instances, the children will be given the opportunity to acquire authorization to stay in the country. The origins of illegal immigration date to the late nineteenth century. In 1875, a federal law was passed which prohibited entry of convicts and prostitutes. In 1882 President Chester A. Arthur banned almost all Chinese immigration to the United States, and shortly thereafter barred paupers, criminals and the mentally ill from entering. Although this affected only a small percentage of immigrants, there were now distinctions between legal and illegal immigration. Before this, immigration was barely regulated. So what is “THE LAW ON IMMIGRANT MINORS?”
Before we look further into the anatomy of “Immigration Reform”, I want you to view this matter objectively without the spin of politics. Because as I see it, both parties are equally responsible for the current laws on the books. It’s amazing how after shit blows up in their faces, each party tries their best to cover up the smell with some off brand fragrance. Everybody always wants to adopt the quick fix prowess as a solution. Which in essence merely delays the inevitable because at the end of the day, “the smell is still lingering.” So lets be clear, the immigration laws; as a whole, have been yet another failed policy for this country. Now in my honest opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with trial and error. But what irks me is none of the politician are willing to accept RESPONSIBILITY. At some point this country with have another progressive spurt like the one embodied in the “DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE” and see through the smoking mirrors.
The fact is children have arrived in the United States without their parents for decades, but over the past two years the flow has become a veritable flood of youths — mostly from Central America — crossing the border in groups and sometimes with the help of adult migrant-smugglers. Their numbers are so large that earlier this month President Barack Obama called the situation a humanitarian crisis. Since 2009, the number of unaccompanied minors apprehended crossing the U.S. border has sharply increased. The journey for these children is long, expensive, and dangerous. So is President Obama soft on matters related to immigration & foreign policies or is his administration following the laws passed by Congress when he steps up and tries to an issue that has been a part of this country dating back to the late nineteenth century. So what does the actual law on Immigration say about the “Immigration of Minors?”
THE CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT (CSPA)
The Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) was signed into law on August 6, 2002. CSPA was enacted to address the problem of minor children losing their eligibility for immigration benefits because they had aged-out or turned 21 years old as a result of processing delays on the part of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or the Department of State. It was not intended to benefit an applicant who aged-out due to the unavailability of a visa number.
Now you know how we do it here at STREET JUSTICE, I have no intentions on trying to spoon feed you with the tracking language hiding in plain site. All you have to do is GOOGLE the CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT (CSPA) and you’ll see for yourself this has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama Administration, but it falls on the ENTIRE system of government. Because in order for the legislation to have passed into to law, Democrats as well as Republicans would have had to vote on it. Basically, the LAW ON IMMIGRANT MINORS is another magic trick; or misdirection, performed by the media and we as the audience have to simply keep our eyes on the cards. In this case the law.
Well, all of this talk about Milk & Honey has got me on edge. I think I’ll go out into my backyard take off my pants and scream at top of my lungs…And hope the entire fiasco’s not captured on tape by a flying DRONE! Freedom, you’ve got to love it! This is Maestro.
Well, here we are with a token acting on behalf of a system; that doesn’t give a rats ass about him, to keep the populace at large divided. The gentleman in the YOUTUBE video has absolutely no clue of the implications associated with his, so-called standing up for the Second Amendment. I can guarantee you one thing, if he had been advocating increasing the salaries for the teachers in public schools he wouldn’t have been given the time or day. Let alone his own show during prime time television viewing periods.
What is so remarkable about owning a gun anyway? Does it give you a certain feeling of prestige or accomplishment? The same type one would have being a member of an elite club or non-profit organization. Or maybe it gives one status and helps them cope with getting their ass whipped on the school yard. In my opinion, this in nothing more than another example of big government and CORPORATIONS placing “We THE People” in the mist of their games to further their political agenda! Once again, I am Maestro blazing it up and coming to you live with what I consider to be a hot topic. I for one, have never owned a gun in this country and I don’t see the need for one. If I don’f feel safe in an area I live in, I simply move. Oh! And a good security system helps me sleep like a baby.
So, back to the nature at hand, Children are being brutality gunned down on playgrounds and in their classrooms where they are being sent to get an education. College students with promising careers are having their dreams shattered and innocent everyday people are losing their lives all because the government is more caught up with pleasing CORPORATIONS than protecting it’s greatest asset. (“IT’S CITIZENS) The framers of the Constitution were adamant about establishing a government by the people and for the people. This system of government was founded on taking the power away from government officials and placing it into the hands of it’s citizen. A concept long forgotten in this country.
Somewhere between the twisted commentary and convoluted debates lies the answer to what has become one of the nations number one threat. And it’s not the so-called WAR ON DRUGS or the fight against TERRORISM. It is “THE GUN DEBATE!” Both sides have a rendition on what they feel will reduce the chances of our children falling victim to another random act of senseless rage. And I use the term RANDOM, loosely. Here are a few reasons given regarding the epidemic:
Video Games
Mentally Ill
Lack Registration Policies for Convicted Felons
Not enough guns in the hands of law abiding citizens
All right lets attack these point one at a time shall we?
Video Games – Do video games contribute to youth violence? 97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts. Personally speaking, I was raised during an era when parents forced kids to get out of the house and participate in extra curricular activities at school. Having friends over to sit around spoiling the furniture playing video games just wasn’t the order of the day. Well times have changed, but the psychological state of humans still reigns supreme. I realize an individuals thoughts can be influenced by images and perceptions. Take a look at America for instance, the election of a Black president ushered in the notion there is equality for the Black man in America. But we all now that favor falls on the straight middle class White male here the United States.
Case in point, IF these mass shooting had been carried out by men of color, legislation governing their indiscretion would have been swift and stern. As a matter of fact, MANDATORY MINIMUM LAWS would have already been enacted and the NRA would no more have a dog in the fight than Michael Vick. Be that as it may, unfortunately children and otherwise innocent American’s are being placed in a crossfire. Leaving us to resent one another and act out on our frustrations.
2. Mentally Ill – What did all the mass shooters have in common?
a. They all had a documented history of mental illness.
b. They all had reasonably easy access to legally owned firearms.
For many people, their preferred response is to imply, or draw the conclusion that, had these perpetrators received the proper medical treatment and monitoring, these horrific tragedies could have been prevented. The logical response is then to improve our handling of these mentally ill people. Not only could this prevent future tragedies from occurring, but then even if they do, we know that we will have done all that we reasonably could have to prevent them.
The government can’t continue to blame it’s inadequate gun control policies on the mentally impaired. The simple fact remains, they have assess to the weapons. Unless of course, they are considering placing anyone diagnosed with mental illness in a concentration camp. ABSURD! My sentiments actually. I don’t profess being a specialist in the field of mental health, but I when individuals plan and otherwise orchestrate these acts of violence. They tend to choose soft spots to carry out their deeds, so what makes us think for one moment individuals will not case out certain areas before striking. “So much for the mentally impaired. The shooters in a number of these mass shootings; not only take out the time to attack areas of least resistance, they also gear up for the occasion. And in the aftermath, they conveniently snap into a mental state of disorientation. (“I’ll have a life sentence with that GRAMMY!) No seriously, if armed guards are placed in classrooms the people carrying out these acts will find other soft spots to attack, i.e., (grocery stores, ball games, and parks).
3. Stricter Regulations against Convicted Felons – This is my favorite one. Now I am going out there on the limb and state for the record, the individuals who carried out a large percentage of documented mass shootings were NOT convicted felons. First of all a convicted felon can’t just ride around with an arsenal of weapons and artillery in the trunk and post MANIFESTOS of their displeasure with the justice system. Believe it or not, with the exception of the gang members in drive by related offenses criminals motives are to get money. Criminals are not walking into areas of unarmed people and letting the hammer fly. IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM DO I ADVOCATE, SUPPORT OR ENCOURAGE crime. It’s just that the notion of placing more guns on the street concerns me.
4. Not enough guns in the hands of law abiding citizens – I posted an article a while back about the problem associated with flooding the streets with guns. I don’t care how many guns you place on the streets, it’s not going to stop crime from happening. But on the contrary, countries I’ve personally lived in with strict gun laws have very little or no crimes related to gun violence. Don’t get me wrong, there are going to be situations where a person snaps and hopefully local authorities are properly trained to handle the crisis situation. But the notion of just putting guns in everyone’s hand is a disaster waiting to happen. We already witnessed what happened in the George Zimmerman “Murder” trial. We are suppose to be a civilized country. The fact is, as people we may have disagreements but what may escalate a misunderstanding into a murder could very well be one’s interpretation of a situation, that could be easily resolved by good old fashion dialog. Unfortunately, when you place a gun in the hands of (insecure people) bad things happen.
George Zimmerman is a classic example of why vigilantism should be prohibit or otherwise outlawed. Vigilante type of behavior on the streets has already been addressed. Check this out! There was a case at Columbia University where the students felt the need to write in graffiti, to put one of their classmates on blast who was convicted on sexual assault charges. The student body at large was meet with heavy criticism for their actions. And even though they had good intentions, the faculty shut down their operation.
NOTE: I will not place the image of any of the shooters on this blog out of respect for the families who lost loved ones. MAY THEY REST IN PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you know the lyrics to this youtube video, chances are we are around the same age. On the other hand, if it’s your first time seeing it take out a few minutes to listen to the lyrics and learn something about how bills are turned into laws.
Thousands of bills are introduced during each Congress. Vanishingly few of them end up becoming law — fewer each year, as Congressional gridlock and dysfunction worsen. Out of 7,207 bills and joint resolutions introduced during this Congress, only 103 have become law — fewer, by this point, than in any other Congress since at least the 1970s.
MEDICAL MARIJUANA is an issue building up a lot of momentum. There are currently 21 medical marijuana states and several waiting for bills to be passed through. Under federal law, marijuana is treated like every other controlled substance, such as cocaine and heroin. The federal government places every controlled substance in a schedule, in principle according to its relative potential for abuse and medicinal value. Under the CSA, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the federal government views marijuana as highly addictive and having no medical value.
Conflict between State and Federal Law
As of this printing, the federal government claims that marijuana is not medicine and in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that the federal government has the constitutional authority to prohibit marijuana for all purposes. Thus, federal law enforcement officials may prosecute medical marijuana patients, even if they grow their own medicine and even if they reside in a state where medical marijuana use is protected under state law. The Court indicated that Congress and the Food and Drug Administration should work to resolve this issue.
The Raich decision does not say that the laws of California (or any other medical marijuana state) are unconstitutional; nor does it invalidate them in any way. Also, it does not say that federal officials must prosecute patients. Decisions about prosecution are still left to the discretion of the federal government.
TRACKING NEW STATE GUN LAWS–
In April of this year, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 60, a bill which expands the ability to carry firearms in public spaces such as bars and airports. The media was quick to report that this bill is evidence of a backlash against the many significant gun violence prevention laws enacted in the states last year, despite the media’s predominant narrative from last year that, after Newtown, more states weakened gun laws and the gun lobby “won”. The truth is that the recent media narratives are far from accurate.
Despite popular belief, in the last sixteen months since Newtown, the media has incorrectly portrayed the complicated and nuanced activity in fifty different state legislative bodies. The new laws have been tallied, and often, have been inappropriately equalized. Small bills which keep concealed weapons permit holders’ information private have been categorized as having equal weight to sweeping new laws that require background checks and ban assault weapons. The stories proclaiming the Georgia bill to be a pro-gun backlash make little of the fact that it was the NRA’s top priority in Georgia for two years and, after failing last year, barely scraped by this year and only in a watered-down version. The backlash stories also fail to mention the groundswell of activism that rose in opposition to the bill and succeeded in forcing the gun lobby to strip provision after provision from the measure.
One in every 20 federal prisoners could be eligible for early release under a potential sentencing change to be voted on Thursday for inmates convicted of crack cocaine offenses.
Congress passed a law last year substantially lowering recommended sentences for people convicted of crack cocaine crimes, ranging from possession to trafficking. The idea was to fix a longstanding disparity in punishments for crack and powder cocaine crimes, but the new, lower recommended sentences for crack offenders didn’t automatically apply to people already in prison. Now the six-member U.S. Sentencing Commission must decide whether offenders locked up for crack offenses before the new law took effect should benefit and get out earlier.
Up to 12,000 of the roughly 200,000 people incarcerated in federal prisons nationwide could be affected. A report by the commission estimates that the average sentence reduction would be approximately three years, though a judge would still have to approve any reduction.
“There is a tremendous amount of hope out there,” said Mary Price, vice president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, an advocacy group for prisoners and their relatives. “There is a potential that people could see their sentences reduced, for some quite dramatically.”
At a meeting in early June, commissioners suggested they wanted to apply the lower recommended sentences to at least some past offenders, but it is unclear how many. Advocacy groups have asked for the widest possible application. But a group of 15 Republican lawmakers from the House and Senate wrote the commission saying the Fair Sentencing Act passed by Congress last year was not intended to benefit any past offenders.
At the June hearing, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder took the middle road. He expressed support for making the new, lower guideline sentences retroactive but suggested limits on who should be eligible. Holder said prisoners who used weapons when committing crimes or who have significant criminal histories should not be eligible. If the commission adopts that view it could cut in half the number of prisoners who would stand to benefit from 12,000 to approximately 6,000.
Any decision about who should be eligible for a reduced sentence will have to be approved by four of the commission’s six members, who include judges and former prosecutors. Once the commission votes, Congress has until the end of October to reject or modify the guidelines, though that is considered unlikely.
If the commission does decide to lower recommended sentences, the reductions would not be automatic. A lawyer, the overwhelming majority of them public defenders, would file paperwork in court for the prisoner seeing a reduction, and the reduction would have to be approved by a judge. Prisoners would not necessarily have to appear in court, but prosecutors would also weigh in. The earliest prisoners could start petitioning to have their sentence reduced would be November, assuming Congress does not act.
The measure the commission will consider making retroactive changed a 1986 law, enacted at a time when crack cocaine use was rampant and the drug was involved in a wave of violent crime, under which a person convicted of crack cocaine possession got the same mandatory prison term as someone with 100 times the same amount of powder cocaine. The legislation reduced that ratio to about 18-1. The disparity disproportionately affects minorities — some 80 percent of those convicted of crack cocaine offenses are black.
According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, applying the change to those currently serving prison sentences for crack offenses could lead to major savings for taxpayers.
The group says the current annual per-person cost of incarceration is more than $28,000, and that retroactivity would allow for an average sentence reduction of 37 months. If all 12,040 people who would potentially be affected received the average sentence reduction, it would save taxpayers more than $1 billion over the next 30 years.
STREET JUSTICE 