Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

There are consequences to being an arrogant, sullen prick.

Dumb motherfuckers cannot understand a consequence that most 4 year olds have fully sorted out.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Prediction: the gop will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

I’m starting to think Jesus may have made a mistake saving people with no questions asked.

“Can i answer the question? No you can not!”

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

Those who are easily outraged are easily manipulated.

“woke” is the new caravan.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

When we show up, we win.

How stupid are these people?

We’re watching the self-immolation of the leading world power on a level unprecedented in human history.

How any woman could possibly vote for this smug smarmy piece of misogynistic crap is beyond understanding.

These are not very smart people, and things got out of hand.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

You are here: Home / Politics / Activist Judges! / Nothing but a one-way liberal ratchet

Nothing but a one-way liberal ratchet

by | 31 Comments

This post is in: 

Good news:

In 2010, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the vast disparity in the way the federal courts punish crack versus powder cocaine offenses. Instead of treating 100 grams of cocaine the same as 1 gram of crack for sentencing purposes, the law cut the ratio to 18 to 1. Initially, the law applied only to future offenders, but, a year later, the United States Sentencing Commission voted to apply it retroactively. Republicans raged, charging that crime would go up and that prisoners would overwhelm the courts with frivolous demands for sentence reductions. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa said the commission was pursuing “a liberal agenda at all costs.”
This week, we began to learn that there are no costs, only benefits. According to a preliminary report released by the commission, more than 7,300 federal prisoners have had their sentences shortened under the law. The average reduction is 29 months, meaning that over all, offenders are serving roughly 16,000 years fewer than they otherwise would have. And since the federal government spends about $30,000 per year to house an inmate, this reduction alone is worth nearly half-a-billion dollars — big money for a Bureau of Prisons with a $7 billion budget. In addition, the commission found no significant difference in recidivism rates between those prisoners who were released early and those who served their full sentences.

Take it away, Senator Grassley. From 2011:

Mr. Chairman, last year, we passed the Fair Sentencing Act. That law reduced sentences for crack cocaine, and directed the Sentencing Commission to establish changes to the Guidelines. The law applied prospectively only.
Now, however, the Sentencing Commission is considering applying its crack cocaine guidelines retroactively. By its own calculations, the sentences of 12,000 inmates would be reduced.
Most of these offenders are violent and likely to reoffend. Although these offenders are now serving time for crack cocaine offenses, the vast majority have been convicted of serious crimes in the past.
In addition to the dangers of releasing violent inmates, retroactive application of the guidelines would impose numerous costs on the Justice Department and the courts.

He’s a fiscal conservative, obviously:

Inmates will file thousands of resentencing petitions. Prosecutors will be required to respond, diverting them from other priorities. Court clerks will spend time managing this additional work. Magistrate judges will review the petitions and will hold at least some hearings to resolve them. Justice Department lawyers will need to prepare for those hearings. The Marshals Service will be required to transport inmates to and from their hearings. Various clerical functions and expenses will need to be incurred if the hearings are favorable to the inmates.
Neither the Department of Justice nor the courts should have to absorb these costs. If scarce resources are to be shifted, from prosecuting crime, to addressing petitions and hearings, the Sentencing Commission should have to pay the costs associated with making its guidelines retroactive. That is what my amendment does.
The Sentencing Commission has decided to pursue a liberal agenda at all costs, disregarding significant opposition to its misguided policies, and disregarding specific Congressional intent. Perhaps my amendment will, for the first time, gain their attention.
If the Sentencing Commission is going to be nothing but a one-way liberal ratchet to apply lower sentences for convicted violent offenders, we should think about abolishing it. Perhaps we should put it out of its misery – and ours.

Reader Interactions

31Comments

  2. 2.

    Roger Moore

    Duh. It doesn’t matter that we’re saving money. Fiscal conservatism is about spending money only on conservative priorities- punishing and killing people- and not on liberal priorities- defending, protecting, and supporting them. Billions for prisons, but not one cent for rehabilitation!

  5. 5.

    Villago Delenda Est

    But the fucking ni*CLANGS* are not being punished enough for their crimes! We can’t have them serving the same time as good white boys who work for Citibank or J.P Morgan!

  6. 6.

    dmsilev

    Of course, Grassley is all about saving money when it comes to eliminating supposedly-superfluous judicial seats at the DC Court of Appeals. Or so he says anyway.

  8. 8.

    Litlebritdifrnt

    I am busting my ass on working on a criminal case right now that could result in the defendant not only getting sentenced to time in NC but could end up him having his parole revoked in MD and him serving a full 40 years for armed robbery when no one was hurt, not a soul. People get less time for murder.

  11. 11.

    Kay

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    We go so crazy it takes a long time to undo it. 2006:

    What Ever Happened to Crack Babies?
    Doctors shoot down crack baby theories and stigmas.
    The New England Journal of Medicine suggested that prenatal cocaine exposure could cause behavioral and learning problems, a media maelstrom over “crack babies” ensued. A former director of the National Center on Child Abuse called them the “bio-underclass.” In 1989, columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote, “Theirs will be a life of certain suffering, of probably deviance, of permanent inferiority.”
    As it turns out, a slew of more rigorous studies have found no scientific basis for such claims. There is evidence that cocaine use increases the chance of spontaneous miscarriage or a low-birth-weight baby. But any later deficits were caused not by crack but by lack of prenatal care, poverty, and malnutrition. Doctors argue that the stigma of being a crack baby does more damage than the crack exposure.

  12. 12.

    Mnemosyne

    Here’s the truly stupid thing about the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences: where do these people think crack cocaine comes from? It doesn’t magically appear from the air, it’s cooked down from powder cocaine.

  13. 13.

    burnspbesq

    I’d like to whack Chuck Grassley upside the head with a cast-iron skillet. I feel like I can dimly remember a time when he wasn’t a complete idiot, but that could be my memory playing tricks on me.

  17. 17.

    Josie

    I suspect that some of our congresspeople and senators and so stupid and lacking in reading and math skills that the research and statistics don’t mean much to them. They stick to their preconceived notions no matter what the numbers say and really believe they are doing the righteous thing. I don’t know what you could do to convince them.

  18. 18.

    DaveinOz

    I love this quote from Nate Cohn’s piece‘

    Desire for change was greatest, if still very limited, on cultural conservative issues. On gay marriage, 31 percent of Republicans said they wanted the party to moderate. But 27 percent thought the party wasn’t conservative enough

    27%. Who could’ve guessed.

  19. 19.

    Josie

    Should be “are so stupid” instead of “and so stupid.” FYWP won’t let me edit.

  20. 20.

    Mike in NC

    I recently read something about how the Death Penalty had recently been reintroduced in NC by the teabaggers in Raleigh. Apparently not quite true: the GOPers knew the law existed but now they want it to be used to kill as many people as possible. Gotta catch up with Texas.

  21. 21.

    Ruckus

    @burnspbesq:
    As someone in the early stages of being an old codger myself I still think there should be an upper age limit to nationally elected officials. Or a limit on the number of years that some one can hold that office. I’m not talking one or two terms but I’m also not talking unlimited either. And yes I know they have to be reelected to stay in those 32 years but they affect many people who never get a chance to vote for them or against them. Right now we are being held hostage by how many congress critters? And yes some of the stupidest are young but look who does their bidding to keep their power.

  22. 22.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Kay:

    On the other hand, we know about alcohol use by pregnant women. And examples of brain damaged spawn. See the litter of monsters produced by Barbara Bush, for example.

  28. 28.

    wenchacha

    @efgoldman: The administration of expired phenobarb to the prisoner would qualify as cruel and unusual? Is it a HIPPA thing? I have never sat myself down to watch “Brazil” but I feel sure that this sort of regulatory scrupulousness belongs there.

    Also, I read that block quote but kept hearing old plain-speaking Grassley’s braying voice the entire time. Thanks, Kay, fer nuthin’!

  29. 29.

    Luthe

    @Ruckus: I’m in favor of 18-20 year term limits. If a kid born in your district has had you as a Senator/Rep for their whole life, it’s time for a change.

  30. 30.

    Ruckus

    @Luthe:
    That’s about the range I was thinking. But to make it a little more equal I’d say something like reps 24 yrs and senator 18. That leaves more chances for a rep to run for the senate if they want to stay in national politics.

  31. 31.

    Pococurante

    Kay, please consider teaming up with Pete Guither of DrugWarRant on drug policy issues. He’s done yeoman work for over a decade now, and his only drawback (IMO) is the occasional firebagger-style circular firing squad. (He particularly has a burr in his saddle over Mark Kleiman’s work with Washington state’s decriminalization effort, lord knows why except over “purity violations”).

Comments are closed.