Obama finally gets one right

[Rollo Tomasi]

"Ryan J. Reilly

ryan.reilly@huffingtonpost.com

Eric Holder Outlining New Justice Department Drug Sentencing Reforms
Posted: 08/12/2013 12:39 am EDT | Updated: 08/12/2013 2:46 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department will avoid charging certain low-level and nonviolent drug offenders with crimes that carry mandatory minimums, Attorney General Eric Holder will announce Monday. The policy shift will allow certain defendants -- those without ties to large-scale organizations, gangs or cartels -- to avoid what Holder called "draconian mandatory minimum sentences."

Holder, in a speech before the American Bar Association in San Francisco on Monday, will also announce that the Justice Department is giving U.S. attorneys throughout the country a greater amount of prosecutorial discretion.

"Some issues are best handled at the state or local level," Holder will say, according to prepared remarks provided by the Justice Department. "And that’s why I have directed the United States Attorney community to develop specific, locally-tailored guidelines -- consistent with our national priorities -- for determining when federal charges should be filed, and when they should not."

The "Smart On Crime" plan that Holder is announcing intends to lower the overall federal prison population. As part of that measure, Holder will announce, elderly prisoners who committed no violent crimes and served a significant portion of their sentences may be eligible for early release."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3741524.html

[shortbuspoker]

As part of that measure, Holder will announce, elderly prisoners who committed no violent crimes and served a significant portion of their sentences may be eligible for early release."

Shame they threw that "no violent crimes" stipulation in because Charlie turns 79 this year.

[superallah]

you love obama.

[Rollo Tomasi]

you love obama.

[NaturalBornHustler]

I am confused. What do the feds have to do with low level users and people not connected to large organizations?

Anything the feds are investigating or building a case against isn't low level bullshit. So who the hell are they talking about?

The people they are referring to deal with local police, no idea what the feds would have to do with them. Federal charges with mandatory minimums don't come off possession cases.

[DirtyB]

I am confused. What do the feds have to do with low level users and people not connected to large organizations?

Anything the feds are investigating or building a case against isn't low level bullshit. So who the hell are they talking about?

The people they are referring to deal with local police, no idea what the feds would have to do with them. Federal charges with mandatory minimums don't come off possession cases.

I don't get it either. Maybe they're saying that they won't hassle people who operate dispensaries that are legal under state laws. But contrary to what a lot of people think, they're not doing much of that now. A vast majority of the busts in California are initiated by state and local cops for breaking state laws. They request federal assistance because it's free manpower for them. And when people see feds and state cops together, they assume the feds are in charge.

Last year when Ron Paul was promising to pardon all non-violent drug offenders, I similarly pointed out that the federal government doesn't really deal with non-violent drug offenders.

But just the fact that the Executive Branch is softening their hard line rhetoric after 40 years is a welcome change.

[Avon Barksdale]

Total fucking lip service by this disgrace of a government.