Blacksheep

The Department of Justice, AKA Eric Holder, just announced a new clemency plan for non-violent offenders in the Federal Prison system. They have to have served at least 10 years, not be gang-affiliated, and no record of violence. The idea is to clear out a lot of people sentenced for cocaine and other drugs as well as other non-violent, "low level" offenses.

I've never quite seen how sticking someone in prison for 30 years for selling crack was in the public interest. If 1 or 2 years of incarceration didn't change their ways, nothing would anyway, and as soon as some crack dealer is yanked off the street, another is right there on that same corner, filling the void. Nothing is gained.

Besides, it's our money that pays for the warehousing of these people and I'd much rather see the violent ones getting the long sentences and the crackheads getting County Jail time and let go. Either they go back to it or they don't. The only good that long sentences do is to make sure people are too damn old when they get out to have the energy to return to a life of crime, and even then, some, like bank robbers, sometimes do anyway.

Tyster

bahmer

Even an i***t can get hit with a bolt of lightning, so I guess even a democrat can eventually stumble upon a good plan. I am sure that this was not done for the good of society but more as a way of supposedly harming us. This could backfire in his face and actually work out for the good.

Blacksheep

Well, it's r****t of him, actually, since most of the drug dealers with these long sentences are black and Holder's b***hed in the past about b****s getting longer sentences. But the plain t***h is that packing prisons with them doesn't solve a damn thing. Take one away and another steps in to take his place. Nothing is changed.

Personally I'd just as soon we let them keep on selling to, stealing from and k*****g each other over drugs. It helps thin them out.

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Damn, you fools can't see the forest because of all the trees, or possibly you are l*****ts and know exactly what is happening. Releasing prisoners, coupled with his other idea of restoring v****g rights for all felons, gives the democrats thousands of new v**ers. Coupled with 50, or so, million illegal mexicans being legitimized as v****g citizens, this move gives the democrats another leg up on US e******ns.

Without crooks, v**e f***d, ignorant v**ers and the deadbeats on welfare, democrats could never win an e******n. Republicans have been trying to stop v***r f***d, this replaces the fraudulent democrat v**es that would be lost if v**er ID were required. Remember, the only thing Obama and his minions are good at, is destroying the freedoms and constitution of the US. For all the democrats care, these drug dealers would rot in prison, if it weren't for democrats needing their v**es.

Patty

Plus since they all own private prison stocks exactly who is he planning on making room for so the stocks don't go down.

Blacksheep

You're awful quick to call us fools or worse (L*****ts). At least when you use the word "thousands" in regard to the prisoners, you're close. There will probably be a couple thousand that get early release.

Maybe half will v**e Democrat and the other half won't bother to v**e for anyone. What's that add up to, one-ten thousandth of one percent of all v**ers? Less? Trooper, I think your heart is in the right place but you need to put your brain in gear before letting your fingers do the typing. Your insults aren't appreciated. Don't be so excitable, please.

And.... many states restore v****g rights to felons now, once they've completed their sentence, and why not? For that matter, just as many ex-felons will v**e Republican or Independent as Democrat. Not all law-breakers are Democrats, for Petes's sakes.

Patty

B they don't even want to wait for them to be released any more.
http://medfordcitysearch.com/why-democrats-want-jailed-felons-to-v**e/
"Currently jailed felons are only allowed to v**e in Maine and Vermont. Democrats would like to change state laws so all currently jailed inmates even those with felony records can v**e including those out on parole and awaiting release from prison. With 5.8 million convicts that is a lot of v**es. Democrats also know that 80 percent of all felons polled would v**e democrat so now we can see the reason behind the push for prisoner rights.

Democrats point to the laws in other countries like Canada, Denmark and Israel that allow most convicted criminals even those who are serving prison sentences the right to v**e. Democrats also are saying the law banning prisoners the right to v**e disenfranchises African Americans the most who make up 40 percent of felons in the United States. In a Huffington Post interview, The Sentencing Project calls the law into question and says, “This is a fundamental question of democracy”.

Victim rights advocates call the push by democrats “insulting” and a “slap in the face to all victims of crime”. This issue will not be decided in time for this e******n, but democrats say they will continue to fight for a prisoner’s right to v**e in all local and national e******ns."

Blacksheep

That's not right. Of course, currently imprisoned felons can't v**e BUT I know in California and Idaho also that felons who complete their time get the right to v**e back. Hell, in Idaho they even get their guns back. I just did a Google search now and only ten states DON'T return v****g rights after a felon completes the sentence. All 40 others do. So now what?

Letting a couple thousand felons out early has no impact on national v****g. In fact, only 3 states, Iowa, Kentucky and Florida permanently bar them from v****g. The other 7 only bar certain offenders but the rest can v**e again.

If Obama wants all incarcerated felons to v**e while in prison, that's crazy and I hope it gets shot down, but this post is about letting drug offenders out after 10 years. I'm sure of that because I wrote it.

And once again, why does anyone think that all felons v**e Democrat? Where do you get that?

If people who've done their time aren't allowed to rejoin society, then don't expect them to behave like good citizens. You can't keep whipping a dog and not expect it to turn on you.

Tyster

While someone is incarcerated, they are a ward of the state. As such, I do not have a problem with not allowing them the right to v**e. What is a crime is that those on welfare are also wards of the state... why are they allowed to v**e.

Part of the reason incarcerated felons should not v**e is that they could impact laws affecting their own situations. Again, why not apply that to others that are dependent on the government?

Patty

I don't so much oppose released felons from v****g as I see it as they have paid their debt to society. I am against prisoners v****g. They should lose all the rights that we have that have not committed crimes.

Blacksheep

Yeah, I just edited my last reply to reflect that, prisoners should not be allowed to v**e. Taking away that right is part of the punishment for their crimes as it should be.

Blacksheep

Because the others aren't being punished for something. Disenfranchisement is a punishment for committing crimes.

oldladyfromwaco

As in most cases in this world, "it's ALL about the money".

Research, if you have time, how this evolved after the failure of "Prohibition"......the best example ever(before criminalization of drugs) of how to make a lot of money.....fast.

But, in the case of drugs, the illegal traffic makes billions....and the private prisons/jails do, too....it pays on ALL fronts.

The whole thing comes down to what we have now....the highest prison rate in the world..........and billions of dollars go to pay for the private prisons and jails.

About 30 years ago, private prisons became the vogue. However, there was a problem. They were going broke. So.......as with all such situations, money flowed......and the laws were changed to the extent that what would have been a $30 fine for a bar fight became 20 years in prison.
And.....the prisons filled.....and fortunes were made....and still are being made.........as most PP contracts require 100 PER CENT occupation. Now, how does that sound to you?
Perhaps, it smacks of being more than just a little bit r****d....at least it does to me....as I watch the "justice" system in Waco.

My experience in Social Work, AA, NA, etc. showed me that you can send anyone....a kid, a man, girl, or woman.....to prison to absolutely NO avail.....except to keep them off the streets. And......the overwhelming result is a really well taught criminal.....IF the individual hasn't the backbone, support, etc. to "walk the line"....which, sadly, a great percentage do not. There must be a better alternative.

I, after watching this since the middle of the last century, find that legalization of drugs (except those like meth, LSD, etc.) with stringent monitoring with supplies given would be a far preferable alternative....and FAR less expensive on all fronts, considering prison easily costs close to $40,000. a year. Also, there are many that, if the supply for their addiction was legally provided, they would, in spite of that addiction, live productive lives.

As for pot, there was a long....about 15 minutes.....commentary on legalization last night on one of the evening news programs.....and, as I have predicted for years, it IS going to happen.

The downside? ROFL!!!! ALL of the "greenhouses" now producing flowering plants, houseplants, etc. will probably convert to pot. Years ago, in the 80's, I had a flower franchise in the new mall in Waco. The young man who supplied my potted plants and his family had about 30 acres of greenhouses. He told me, when we discussed it, that every plant would be gone immediately when Pot became legal..........

I really don't care how this evolves. I do know, and have cared, that SO man have lost everything over a tiny bit of pot in an ashtray.....for no reason other than greed, basically.

There has to be a better way!

Trooper745 Loc: Carolina

Here are some other reasonably good opinions differing with you on the number of v**es possibly gained by letting felons v**e, and the percentage of them likely to v**e democratic. I do understand the below info concerns another law, but the 1.2 million v**e potential and the 61.5% Democratic vs 9% Republican divide is probably about correct.

The Washington Times wrote in a Mar. 8, 2005 editorial titled "Felons and Democratic Politicking":

"The bill ... would mandate felon v****g across the country, regardless of state law.

The bill shows that Democrats are more interested in the potential v****g bloc than what the Constitution allows or what Americans actually want. ...

If Congress passes the bill, The Count Every V**e Act of 2005, which failed to pass, Democratic e*******l gains would be an estimated 1.2 million new v**ers."

and

Marc Meredith, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Business Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Michael Morse, Research Fellow at Stanford Law School, stated the following in their Nov. 18, 2013 article "Do V****g Rights Notification Laws Increase Ex-Felon Turnout?," published in the Annals of the American Academy of Political Science:

"In New York, ex-felons who are registered overwhelmingly register as Democrats. Of those discharge records that match to at least one v**er file record, 61.5 percent match only to Democratic v**er records. In contrast, 25.5 percent match only to v**er records with no affiliation or an affiliation with a minor party, while 9 percent match only to Republican v**er records...

...Registered ex-felons in New Mexico tend to be overwhelmingly Democrat: 51.9 percent match to only registered Democrats, 18.9 percent match to only registered Republicans, 21.7 percent match to only individuals registered neither as Democrats nor Republicans, and 7.5 percent match to multiple individuals who affiliate with different parties..."