Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:09 AM Jun 2015

Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Portions Of Federal ‘3 Strikes’ Sentencing Laws

Not just marriage equality and Obamacare...


http://www.occupydemocrats.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-portions-of-federal-3-strikes-sentencing-laws/

While the country was busy celebrating the Supreme Court’s long-awaited marriage equality ruling, the justices issued another ruling in the Johnson v. United States case that dealt a crucial blow to the prison industrial complex. The SCOTUS ruled that a key provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act, which lengthens the sentences of “career criminals,” is unconstitutionally vague. The ruling paves the way for thousands of prisoners to have their sentences reduced and will cause the private prison industry to lose millions of dollars in profits.

In 1984, Congress passed the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the law required judges to sentence people to 15 years to life if they have three prior convictions for “serious drug offense” or “violent felonies.” However, what exactly qualified as a “violent felony” was frustratingly vague and was used as a sentence enhancer in many non-violent cases. A “residual clause” in the ACCA allowed third time felons to be sent to prison for any crime that ” presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” That potential risk could include drunk driving, fleeing police, failing to report to a parole officer and even attempted burglary. It seemed to be used as a catch-all sentence enhancer for the sole purpose of throwing people in prison for years longer than they deserved to be. This practice has become increasingly more common as more states allow for-profit prisons in their states.

In the Johnson case, the government used the ACCA to enhance Samuel Johnson’s prison sentence because of a prior conviction of possession of a sawed off shotgun. Johnson argued that he shouldn’t be subjected to a harsher sentence, because the definition of what was considered “violent” was unconstitutionally vague. The SCOTUS agreed with Johnson and issued a 7-1 ruling in his favor.

...

Now, prosecutors across the country will have to figure out who qualifies to have their sentences reduced, a move that is probably making private prison CEOs weep in despair. The private prison industry has been a long-time supporter of harsh mandatory minimum sentences because that means higher profits for them. The two biggest private prison corporations–GEO and Corrections Corporation of America— make about $3 billion annually off of incarcerated Americans; in turn they spend millions of dollars on lobbying efforts.
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Portions Of Federal ‘3 Strikes’ Sentencing Laws (Original Post) Scuba Jun 2015 OP
To me this ruling is almost as important as the other big rulings this week. marble falls Jun 2015 #1
Yet another step TM99 Jun 2015 #2
Now we need to unhook NSA forever from our phones and e-mail. One more Clinton era.... marble falls Jun 2015 #3
Hillary must be sad BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #13
No shit, she definitely did. TM99 Jun 2015 #16
Our "justice" system has been toyed with by politicians for BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #17
I think this is a good call too. PowerToThePeople Jun 2015 #4
Did Scalia become a leftist? former9thward Jun 2015 #12
How does one live knowing you want and push for longer riversedge Jun 2015 #5
Like Arya, I have a list I recite ... dixiegrrrrl Jun 2015 #10
How does one support it? BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #14
Wow. I'm stunned. Have the pod people taken over the Supremes? nt ladyVet Jun 2015 #6
Yes - and also a ruling on a TX case that reinforced the Fair Housing Act BumRushDaShow Jun 2015 #7
+1 Scuba Jun 2015 #9
Thank god for that! BrotherIvan Jun 2015 #15
This was another important ruling that people are ignoring due to the other key rulings Gothmog Jun 2015 #8
This is a good step. Blue_In_AK Jun 2015 #11
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Jun 2015 #18
K&R Solly Mack Jun 2015 #19

marble falls

(57,010 posts)
3. Now we need to unhook NSA forever from our phones and e-mail. One more Clinton era....
Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:43 AM
Jun 2015

bad idea. As much as I supported the big dog, there are three or four really, really bad things that need/needed undoing. Deregulating the banks and Wall Street is one that REALLY needs fixing.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
13. Hillary must be sad
Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:11 PM
Jun 2015

She really liked three strikes.

"We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three strikes and you’re out for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets." --HRC, 1994

 

TM99

(8,352 posts)
16. No shit, she definitely did.
Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:27 PM
Jun 2015

I remember he saying that in 1994. One of my first externships was in a prison drug outreach & counseling program. I met so many hispanic and black men (some women too of course) that needed drug treatment and addiction management NOT prison! I remember how angry I felt them, and I am glad that this decision will begin to reverse some of that nonsense.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
17. Our "justice" system has been toyed with by politicians for
Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:56 PM
Jun 2015

political gains. People locked up so soccer moms will vote for them. It is disgusting. I too am glad about this ruling. I wonder what will happen to those already in prison.

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
4. I think this is a good call too.
Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:46 AM
Jun 2015

Wow. SCOTUS is the most left leaning branch of of GOV currently, only in they are doing what is right.

riversedge

(70,077 posts)
5. How does one live knowing you want and push for longer
Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:46 AM
Jun 2015

prison sentences--day after day--it is your livelihood !


....The private prison industry has been a long-time supporter of harsh mandatory minimum sentences because that means higher profits for them. The two biggest private prison corporations–GEO and Corrections Corporation of America— make about $3 billion annually off of incarcerated Americans; in turn they spend millions of dollars on lobbying efforts.......

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
14. How does one support it?
Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:12 PM
Jun 2015

"We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three strikes and you’re out for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets."

Guess who said that?

BumRushDaShow

(128,441 posts)
7. Yes - and also a ruling on a TX case that reinforced the Fair Housing Act
Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:56 AM
Jun 2015
The formula, claimed the nonprofit suing the agency, effectively guaranteed that affordable housing in Dallas was concentrated in poor, inner-city minority neighborhoods, and was hard to find in the city's white suburbs. As a result, the lawsuit argued, the housing agency denied low-income minorities the chance to live in neighborhoods with better schools and greater opportunity, perpetuating decades-old patterns of segregation.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cases like this can be brought under the Fair Housing Act, even if the officials who wrote that formula didn't intend to discriminate. The Fair Housing Act, the court reaffirmed today, prohibits not just intentional discrimination, but also policies that can have a "disparate impact" on minorities.

This is not, on the one hand, a groundbreaking reading of the law. Lower courts, civil rights lawyers and federal agencies have interpreted the Fair Housing Act this way for decades, even though the 1968 law didn't explicitly contain the words "disparate impact." On the other hand, the ruling is momentous: Had a single justice — likely Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the opinion — felt differently, another key piece of civil rights law in the U.S. would have been substantially weakened.

The ruling is also significant because it implicates policies far beyond formulas that dictate where affordable housing tax credits are used, and these policies exist in communities all over the country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/25/the-supreme-courts-housing-decision-is-a-warning-against-subtle-segregation-everywhere/

Gothmog

(144,919 posts)
8. This was another important ruling that people are ignoring due to the other key rulings
Sun Jun 28, 2015, 10:41 AM
Jun 2015

The three strikes law is a bad law but the other ScOTUS rulings are crowding out coverage of this ruling. There will be three more important rulings on Monday including clean air, gerrrymandering and death penalty

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court Strikes Dow...