Rand Paul: 'I Am Here To Ask That We Begin The End Of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing'

[applegrove]

Rand Paul: 'I Am Here To Ask That We Begin The End Of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing'

by Jacob Sullum at Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/09/18/rand-paul-i-am-here-to-ask-that-we-begin-the-end-of-mandatory-minimum-sentencing/

"SNIP........................................

“
If I told you that one out of three African-American males is [prohibited] by law from voting, you might think I was talking about Jim Crow, 50 years ago. Yet today a third of African-American males are still prevented from voting because of the war on drugs. The war on drugs has disproportionately affected young black males. The ACLU reports that blacks are four to five times more likely to be convicted for drug possession, although surveys indicate that blacks and whites use drugs at about the same rate. The majority of illegal drug users and dealers nationwide are white, but three-fourths of the people in prison for drug offenses are African American or Latino.

Barack Obama expressed similar concerns before he was elected president. Since then, not so much, although his attorney general recently took up the theme, almost five years into Obama’s presidency. More important, Obama has done little to address the injustices caused by the war on drugs, aside from signing the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. That law, which reduced the irrational sentencing disparity between the smoked and snorted forms of cocaine, had almost unanimous support in Congress, so it’s not as if Obama took much of a risk by supporting it. And having declared that thousands of crack offenders are serving excessively long sentences under the old rules, he has used him clemency power to free exactly one of them. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) mentioned her at today’s hearing: Eugenia Jennings, an Illinois woman who got a 22-year prison sentence for selling “a handful of crack cocaine” to an undercover cop. When Durbin told Obama about her case, the senator said, the president checked with the U.S. attorney’s office that prosecuted her and the judge who sentenced her; after both said she did not belong in prison, Obama decided to shorten her sentence by 12 years.

“I’m glad the president has such great compassion,” Paul commented, “because he’s admitted, like a lot of other individuals who are now elected to office, that at one time he made mistakes as a youth. And I think, ‘What a tragedy if he had gone to prison….American would not have gotten to see Barack Obama as a leader.’” It was hard to tell whether Paul was being sarcastic.

Paul mentioned other examples of draconian mandatory minimums, including the 55-year sentence that Weldon Angelos, a 24-year-old Utah music entrepreneur, received for a few small pot sales. Another witness, Brett Tolman, a former U.S. attorney for Utah, noted that the DEA could have busted Angelos after the first undercover buy but waited for two more, knowing that Angelos’ possession of a gun would trigger stacked sentences adding up to more than half a century. Paul also cited Edward Clay, an 18-year-old first-time offender who got 10 years after he was caught with less than two ounces of cocaine, and John Horner, a 46-year-old father of three who got a 25-year mandatory minimum for selling some of his painkillers to a friend who turned out to be a police informant. “The injustice of mandatory minimums is impossible to ignore when you hear the stories of the victims,” he said. “There is no justice here. It is wrong and needs to change.”




......................................SNIP"

[applegrove]

1. He's definitely trying to create a new libertarian coalition by picking off people on the far left.

[markpkessinger]

2. That may be . . .

. . . in which case, we should be asking ourselves why more politicians from our side of the aisle have been calling for this.

ON the substance of the issue itself, wholly independent of whatever Paul's motivations might be, he is absolutely right.

[snappyturtle]

5. +1 nt

[Adsos Letter]

23. Yup.

A politician can be right on an issue and yet still not be someone I want in office.

[stevenleser]

52. His motivations are, its harder for all corporations to exploit people if they are in jail. Sure...

some corporations have contracts with state and local governments to use prison labor, but the Pauls and all Libertarians object to governments having any influence over corporations and they object to any state and federal money being spent on jails.

All corporations, not just those that have jail contracts, should have the ability to exploit a larger number of workers according to Libertarians and the Pauls.

[cali]

56. He's getting all the press, but who held that meeting? A democrat, Senator Leahy

And who wrote the legislation to reform MMS that Paul is co-sponsoring? That's right, Senator Leahy.

[mattclearing]

60. Maybe he's looking to absolve himself for his Civil Rights Act nonsense with white people.

I'll tell you one thing, he isn't looking for the black vote, cause that ain't happening.

[PETRUS]

20. Sort of a trojan horse thing going on with this guy.

But he has no chance of fooling real leftists. Really. NO CHANCE. The squishy middle might be swayed, I suppose.

[applegrove]

21. There are some low information voters on the far left. American elections are

won on small percentages.

[PETRUS]

26. I agree with you about low information voters.

Across the spectrum, really - lots of them. I think maybe I'm unclear on what you mean by the far left. In my mind, that means someone who is critical of the kind of property and power arrangements typical of American style libertarianism, and therefore someone who would automatically oppose the Pauls.

[applegrove]

31. Oh yeah. There are low information voters everywhere. I just meant the ones on the far

left might be susceptible to Rand's 'ideas' while ignoring the dangers of such a candidate. I'm talking big weed users, anarchists, the type of people who don't understand how democracy and equality works. As to those who coming from the left and might vote for Paul, they don't see everything and might ignore the right wing part of libertarianism in favour of not being policed by anyone.

[PETRUS]

33. I get you now.

We are using terms differently, that's all. To me, a leftist (and this would include anarchists) are anti-capitalist and Rand's politics would be a total nonstarter. At the very least someone would have to be in favor of policies like unions and social security for me to put them on the left. You mean something else, obviously.

That said, I do know people who have found some of what Ron Paul says appealing (not sure I know any fans of Rand), and they are folks who might otherwise support Democrats or have voted Democratic in the past, so I understand your basic point.

[applegrove]

44. There is some commonality among people who like civil liberties and libertarians.

Those are the far left who put civil liberties and not being policed by anyone up high on their list, and don't understand economics very well may well be lured into Rand Paul's lair. I did say low information voters.

[MuseRider]

55. We saw that with his father

and some of the squishy middle flocked to Ron Paul because of his anti war stance. I could never understand how that happened. Everyone, even the worst of the worst, has to be right about something once in a while but there is a record with these two Paul's. How anyone could vote for someone based on one good thing in a nest of horror is beyond me.

[Vanje]

34. Too bad a DEmocrat didnt beat him to it.

Its a sane and humane policy.

[applegrove]

37. I agree.

[cali]

57. A democrat did beat him to it.

Senator Leahy has been advocating MMS reform since before Rand Paul was elected. Senator Leahy held the hearing on the legislation he authored that Rand is co-sponsoring.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/1980s-called-they-want-their-mandatory-minimums-back

[Hayabusa]

49. Everyone, repeat after me: "The Pauls are not your friends."

[snooper2]

54. The far left and the far right touch to complete the political circle

It's a natural tendency anyway

[MNBrewer]

58. I'd be glad to join that coalition FOR CERTAIN TOPICS where the goals align

But, being that I'm a socialist, I will be fighting against him on a lot of issues. We should work toward worthy goals with whomever will work with us.

"FUCK RAND PAUL" is a stupid response.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Oh, no!

I despise Rand Paul and just HATE it when I agree with that heartless, racist bastard on anything, and this makes the 3rd time in recent months. Intelligence gathering, Syria (sort of), and now this.

[SamKnause]

4. Rand

This Bernie Sanders socialist supporter is in agreement with Rand Paul on this one.

[devils chaplain]

6. And if you agree with Rand Paul, you're a teabagger and you hate Obama!!! n/t

[applegrove]

7. What does selling your soul to the devil mean? That something you really, really want

is offered to you if you just vote for Rand. He's a swell guy. Won't hurt the country. He'll destroy all regulation and controls on big business. Ignore the social program. I'm just saying... low information people may be fooled into voting for the ***hole.

[devils chaplain]

13. He is an asshole and no one should ever vote for him, but...

There have been some around here who have used the fact that a poster may agree with Rand Paul on one issue as evidence in itself that their position is a bad one (see: Syria, NSA), or even ill-intentioned. That's my complaint.

[markpkessinger]

15. The notion that we should never find common cause with our political adversaries . . .

. . . is one of the things that is making this country damned near ungovernable. I carry no love for Rand Paul -- I think he's a racist asshole. But that doesn't mean that on the substance of some issues, he might, on occasion, get it right. You can agree with a politician on one thing without necessarily agreeing or buying into his or her entire agenda. The notion that one should only cooperate with a legislator on Issue A if we agree with him or her on Issues B through Z, or whose motives we are certain to be pure as the driven snow, is a recipe for zero accomplishment on any front under our system. That's essentially the idea that Tea Partiers in the GOP have been following, and while it may have resulted in some short-term successes for them, in the end it has placed the GOP on a path to self-destruction. I believe elected leaders should support, or refuse to support, legislation based on whether that legislation is the right thing to do or not.

The attitude you display here would, it seems to me, be a perfect illustration of what George Washington said in 1796:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

George Washington, September 19, 1796

[applegrove]

17. I agree. I'm saying that if a transaction takes place and someone on the left

actually gives Rand Paul their vote despite the fact he wants there to be no taxes and no social programs...then that is ****ed up. And that is what he is gunning for.

[markpkessinger]

19. Agreed . . .

. . . I think anybody on the left who would actually vote for Rand Paul because they agree with him on a few issues (say legalization of marijuana or ending mandatory minimum sentencing), as opposed to simply supporting a particular piece of legislation he might have proposed, is a blithering idiot.

I guess I read your OP in the context of numerous discussions that have taken place on DU in recent months, in which a very vocal contingent has been wielding any agreement with Rand Paul on any issue as a cudgel, accusing anybody who, on any issue, express any criticism of the President, of being a Paul supporter, merely because they happen to find themselves on the same side as Paul on a handful of issues. It has been, in most cases, a grossly unfair and dishonest way to try to control the discussion of certain issues, by asserting the logical fallacy of the false dilemma (or false choice), essentially positing only two possible points of view (i.e., you either support the President on any given issue, in which case your authenticity as a progressive will not be questioned, or, if you happen to oppose the President on an issue on which Rand Paul also opposes him, you're a Paul supporter). If you didn't intend for your OP to be read in that broader context, then I apologize for unfairly putting it in that context.

[applegrove]

22. No. I wasn't implying you couldn't agree with Rand Paul on some issues. Thanks

for clarifying.

[Vanje]

35. I wish a Democrat would "fool" people into voting for him that way.

[PADemD]

8. OK, but banksters get full sentencing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. Hitler loved dogs -- Dog lovers = Nazis -- Hitler was a vegetarian --- Vegetarians = Nazis

I don't care if Judas Iscariot, Adolf Hitler, Walt Disney and even Rand Paul support ending Mandatory Minimum Sentencing - It's the right policy and we should all support it.

[applegrove]

10. I agree but we should support it as democrats..not by supporting Rand.

[SunSeeker]

12. +1

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. of course - but if paleo-conservatives and libertarian-conservatives want to vote for it too

I certainly wouldn't want to stop them

[Vanje]

36. Maybe the Democrats need to take a lesson from Rand Paul

in how to "fool" liberals liberals into voting for them.

[kcr]

45. Exactly.

I don't care that he supports this. I agree with him on mandatory minimums but I'd never vote for him in a million years so it doesn't matter.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. The bill is co sponsored by Pat Leahy, Democrat.

That makes it easy. I do feel for the folks who have staked their place among the 'it is wrong to agree with Paul even when he is right' crowd the folks who insisted that one has to support bloody wars of aggression if Paul opposes them. The folks who attacked Code Pink for doing what Leahy is doing, which is called 'politics' are painted into something of a corner. Perhaps they will all support harsh mandatory minimums, the most racist aspect of our legal system, just to make sure they don't stand with Code Pink or anything bad like that!

[Initech]

11. Holy shit, I actually agree with Rand Paul for once!

I normally can't stand what a vile gas bag he is, but... what's that saying the enemy of my enemy...?

[Booster]

16. I'll bet this is a ploy by the weasel to get more money from the rich people who own

the prisons. As soon as he gets what he wants he'll do a complete turnaround on this issue. You watch.

[Rex]

18. Yes well he is saying something that appeals to most Americans.

How long has he been against the War on Drugs? All his life or just in the past few years?

[Championette]

28. "the past few years" is as long as he's been a politician

Why do you set the bar so high?

[Rex]

39. LOL!

So he just 'saw the light' eh?

[Rex]

50. Is that what you do when you end a sentence with a question mark?

You need to learn what conclude means it appears.

[Autumn]

24. It is wrong and it does need to change.

that being said, Fuck Rand Paul.

[Rex]

40. I did say even a broken clock is right twice a day

yet now I think that is not fair to broken clocks. They did at one time serve an important function, Rand just takes up good Congress space.

[Nye Bevan]

25. Don't worry folks, nobody will get banned from DU for agreeing with him.

Hey, Dick Cheney got it right on marriage equality well before President Obama did.

[johnp3907]

27. Anyone wanna buy a clock?

It's broken, but it's right twice a day.

[NuclearDem]

29. Cue the links to how Paul is a racist, an idiot, etc etc.

In this case, he's right. Now lets get some Democrats behind that.

[ProSense]

30. Congress finally decides to act

Background.

Justice Is Served

By Laura W. Murphy

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

Today is an exciting day for the ACLU and criminal justice advocates around the country. Following much thought and careful deliberation, the United States Sentencing Commission took another step toward creating fairness in federal sentencing by retroactively applying the new Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) guidelines to individuals sentenced before the law was enacted. This decision will help ensure that over 12,000 people — 85 percent of whom are African-Americans — will have the opportunity to have their sentences for crack cocaine offenses reviewed by a federal judge and possibly reduced.

This decision is particularly important to me because, as director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, I have advocated for Congress and the sentencing commission to reform federal crack cocaine laws for almost 20 years. In 1993, the ACLU lead the coalition that convened the first national symposium highlighting the crack cocaine disparity entitled "The 100 to 1 Ratio: Racial Bias in Cocaine Laws." Now, 25 years after the first crack cocaine law was enacted in the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the sentencing commission has taken another step toward ending the racial and sentencing disparities that continue to exist in our criminal justice system.

By voting in favor of retroactivity, I am pleased that the commission chose justice over demagoguery and concluded that retroactivity was necessary to ensuring that the goals of the FSA were fully realized. It is important to remember that even with today's commission vote not every crack cocaine offender will have his or her sentence reduced. Judges are still required to determine whether a person qualifies for a retroactive reduction so, contrary to what some have said, this is not a "get out of jail free card."

- more -

http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/justice-served

Chance at Freedom: Retroactive Crack Sentence Reductions For Up to 12,000 May Begin Today
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/chance-freedom-retroactive-crack-sentence-reductions-12000-may-begin-today

Sentencing Reform Starts to Pay Off

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

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.

Federal judges nationwide have long expressed vigorous disagreement with both the sentencing disparity and the mandatory minimum sentences they are forced to impose, both of which have been drivers of our bloated federal prison system. But two bipartisan bills in Congress now propose a cheaper and more humane approach. It would include reducing mandatory minimums, giving judges more flexibility to sentence below those minimums, and making more inmates eligible for reductions to their sentences under the new ratio.

But 18 to 1 is still out of whack. The ratio was always based on faulty science and misguided assumptions, and it still disproportionately punishes blacks, who make up more than 80 percent of those prosecuted for federal crack offenses. The commission and the Obama administration have called for a 1-to-1 ratio. The question is not whether we can afford to do it, but whether we can afford not to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/sentencing-reform-starts-to-pay-off.html

Washington Gives Us Something to Get Excited About (No, Really!)
http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/washington-gives-us-something-get-excited-about-no-really

ACLU Comment on DOJ Plans to Reduce Non-Violent Drug Sentences

WASHINGTON – Laura W. Murphy, director of American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office, responded to Attorney General Eric Holder's proposed policy to reverse the growth of the federal prison population in advance of a speech today at the American Bar Association's Annual Meeting:

"Today, the attorney general is taking crucial steps to tackle our bloated federal mass incarceration crisis, and we are thrilled by these long-awaited developments.

"By mandating that U.S. attorneys change charging practices for low-level, non-violent offenders, these policies will make it more likely that wasteful and harmful federal prison overcrowding will end. Over the last year, in one of the few areas of bipartisanship, members of Congress have come together to call for smart criminal justice reform. While today's announcement is an important step toward a fairer justice system, Congress must change the laws that lock up hundreds of thousands of Americans unfairly and unnecessarily."

Throughout Eric Holder's tenure, going back to the successful passage of the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010, the ACLU has worked closely with the attorney general, his staff, and DOJ leadership to develop several of the policy changes announced today.

http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/aclu-comment-doj-plans-reduce-non-violent-drug-sentences

Smarter Sentencing

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

You know a transformational moment has arrived when the attorney general of the United States makes a highly anticipated speech on a politically combustible topic and there is virtually no opposition to be heard.

That describes the general reaction to Eric Holder Jr.’s announcement on Monday that he was ordering “a fundamentally new approach” in the federal prosecution of many lower-level drug offenders. What once would have elicited cries of “soft on crime” now drew mostly nods of agreement. As Mr. Holder said, it’s “well past time” to take concrete steps to end the nation’s four-decade incarceration binge — the result of harsh sentencing laws enacted in response to increased violent crime in the late 1960s and 1970s.

The statistics have been repeated so often as to be numbing: 1.57 million Americans in state and federal prisons, an increase of more than 500 percent since the late 1970s, at a cost of $80 billion annually. In 2010, more than 7 in 100 black men ages 30 to 34 years old were behind bars. The federal system alone holds 219,000 inmates, 40 percent above its capacity, thanks to strict sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences. Of these inmates, nearly half are in prison for drug-related crimes.

In Mr. Holder’s words, “too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason.” Many criminal-justice experts have long felt the same way. What made Mr. Holder’s speech timely and important was that it reflected a fundamental shift in thinking about crime and punishment at the highest levels of government.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/opinion/smarter-sentencing.html

[Comrade Grumpy]

32. On this, I stand with Rand...

...and with Leahy, who also supports major sentencing reform and who, I think, has cosponsored such a bill with Paul.

[gopiscrap]

38. For once I tend to agree with him

[bluedigger]

41. Thanks for showing his good side.

It's a real shame we here at DU spend so much time criticizing him for minor peccadillos like leading the House fight to defund Obamacare, when he is really out there in the trenches fighting for our liberal agenda after all. We wouldn't want to appear biased or anything.


Oh yeah, Fuck Rand Paul.

[applegrove]

42. +100

[Barack_America]

43. You are surprised liberals and libertarians agree on some issues?

Civil liberties? Some common ground. Economic policy? He'll no.

[Skittles]

46. I have a hard time believing that worm really cares about inequality

there has to be more to it

[handmade34]

51. Eric Holder in August...

“As a nation, we are coldly efficient in our incarceration efforts. While the entire U.S. population has increased by about a third since 1980, the federal prison population has grown at an astonishing rate—by almost 800 percent. It’s still growing—despite the fact that federal prisons are operating at nearly 40 percent above capacity. Even though this country comprises just 5 percent of the world’s population, we incarcerate almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners. More than 219,000 federal inmates are currently behind bars. Almost half of them are serving time for drug-related crimes, and many have substance use disorders.”

Rand Paul is just jumping on the bandwagon

[MNBrewer]

59. oh gawd