No, Rand Paul is NOT the only one leading the fight against mandatory minimums.

[cali]

Rand Paul is getting all the media exposure on this issue, but yesterday's hearing was called by Senator Leahy on joint legislation authored by Leahy and Paul.

And Senator Leahy has been speaking out on this since before Paul was elected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/justice-safety-valve-act-senate_n_2918823.html

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

[cali]

4. I meant the vast majority- virtually all of it.

and you can find that out all by yourself. but I"m so helpful I'll give you the link to the google news search for MMS:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=Mandatory+minimum+sentences&oq=Mandatory+minimum+sentences&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j0j43i53.514362.523544.0.524847.31.4.2.25.27.0.162.587.0j4.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.6QUAJOeJtPI

[Bluenorthwest]

6. I pointed out Leahy's involvment this morning on a long DU thread that was All Paul

All the time. No one seemed to have any idea Leahy is involved or that this is something he's been working on for a while. I finally read a post that said 'we need to support this, but as Democrats, not by supporting Paul' which is a good point but even that person did not seem to know that it is Leahy's bill as well. Many DUers have harshly criticized others on the basis that they 'agree with Rand Paul' so this is a difficulty for them seeing Leahy acting like a Senator.

[mattclearing]

2. Because Rand Paul is divisive national clickbait and Leahy is just a Senator.

Maybe if his dad ran for President fifty times or he railed against the Civil Rights Act Senator Leahy could get some media attention.

As it is he has to get cursed out by the Vice President to make news.

[cali]

8. well, as chair of the Judiciary Committee and longest serving Senator

as well as third in line to the Presidency, he does get some media coverage, but nothing like Paul and little considering that he's in the vanguard on so many issues and is such a prolific legislator.

[Drale]

3. Paul claims to be against mandatory minimums

but he supports throwing people who attend radical speeches in jail even though those are his supporters.
http://progressive.org/mc060211.html
He's a fucking hypocrite, support one thing that he thinks will get him a vote but truly support things that are far worst because that's what truly believes and it makes him money. Anyway you look at it he's a POS, and I don't care if he agrees with you on one issue, every other issue he supports is destroying America and any liberal who would support him makes me sick.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. I've never met a liberal who supports him. I have read many characterizations on DU

that when Paul agrees with a liberal that liberal 'Supports Rand'. This has been very common. Leahy is not supporting Paul because they have a bit of common ground on a subject any more than Code Pink was supporting him because they agreed on an issue, nor any more than DUers who did not want to bomb Syria were supporting him when he agreed on that issue. It's politics. Obama has not only co-sponsored bills with Tom Coburn but he has proclaimed friendship, areas of agreement and penned articles of praise for him in Time Magazine, 'Oklahoma is luck to have Tom'. Coburn is a right wing lunatic, a raging homophobe to the point of hate mongering. Does Obama 'support him'? Of course not. He finds common ground and takes the high ground. So attacking Code Pink because they agree with Paul but not even criticizing Obama for writing a virtual hymn to Coburn is hypocritical bogusness that really should not be tolerated in a political community that claims to seek progress and the common good.

[ProSense]

5. "Congress Needs to Take the Next Step"

Congress Needs to Take the Next Step

While the attorney general has taken some preliminary steps to address the mass incarceration crisis in this country, and the states have been introducing smart reforms to slow prison growth for years, the ball is now in Congress’ court. This year, we call on Congress to pass the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013, which is comprehensive legislation that would reduce the length of some drug mandatory minimum sentences, and the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, which would give federal judges more discretion to sentence below a mandatory minimum sentence when appropriate.

That's from the ACLU link.

Background on progress.

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