Check out some similar questions!

excon · Nov 2, 2007, 05:30 AM

Hello:

Thank goodness for George W. Bush. He's a wonderful man. He did a good thing. I changed my mind about him. I will forever be a supporter.

He's actually NOT wonderful, but what happened WAS wonderful. And this wonderful thing didn't happen because George DID something wonderful either. No, this wonderful thing happened because he's a dufus - and because of the law of unintended consequences.

Nope, this law and order conservative - this lock 'em up guy - this guy who never saw a man on death row that shouldn't be killed - this guy, YOUR GUY, will go down in history as the guy who ended the draconian sentencing laws his base spent the last 20 years building up. (snicker, snicker)

And, he accomplished this wonderful bit of LIBERAL politics, when he commuted the Scooterdude and uttered the words, “the sentence is excessive”, which of course, it was.

I told you then that a sea change was coming. The first wave of this tsunami has arrived. To wit: Crack cocaine offenders will receive shorter prison sentences under more lenient federal sentencing guidelines that went into effect yesterday. You wouldn't think that this kind of thing would be happening under this administration. And, it wouldn't be either, if George had kept his mouth shut. But he started this conversation, his administration is having it, and I'm loving it.

Three cheers for the dufus in chief. Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

tomder55 · Nov 2, 2007, 05:44 AM

I may be wrong ,but I always thought that the Sentencing Commission reported to Congress and makes their recommendations to Congress.Also the Libby sentence was in June and the Commission made their recommendations to Congress in April .

Edit . The way I read it the Commission's biggest concern was the racial disparity in the justice system.

excon · Nov 2, 2007, 06:03 AM

Hello tom:

That's the spin, of course. But why are they so concerned NOW? Congress too, could have stopped these guidelines from going into effect, like they did in 1995, but they didn't this time.

Nope, the conversation has begun. It's actually growing. Do you know that the state of Mo has stopped sending children offenders to adult court?? And, other states are considering adopting the same thing??

That kind of notion was unheard of over the last 20 years. If anything, the conversation was the opposite. And, there's more, much more. I can feel it in the air.

excon

tomder55 · Nov 2, 2007, 06:07 AM

Congress changed parties in 2007 . The real issue is whites use powder coke and minorities more often use crack. But the sentencing for crack was harsher. This just brings the sentences closer .

I agree mandatory sentencing should be reviewed anyway. But the real reason it is being reconsidered is not the Libby trial but the cost of housing convicts .

ETWolverine · Nov 2, 2007, 08:33 AM

I'm not quite sure what the Scooter Libby case has to do with drug sentencing. Until now, I have never heard anyone try to equate the two. I must be missing something, because I don't see any connection.

How does the commutation of Libby's sentence, which was done to allow Libby to stay out of prison during the appeals process, equate to supporting more lenient sentencing for drug offenders?

Furthermore, what does an action taken by Bush with regard to Libby have to do with an action taken by Congress regarding drug sentencing rules?

I don't see the connection.

Elliot

excon · Nov 2, 2007, 08:43 AM

Hello El:

In between the time a leader signals a change, and the law actually GET'S changed, a conversation happens. If you listen carefully, that conversation is happening. Go George!

excon

ETWolverine · Nov 2, 2007, 08:48 AM

I'm listening, and frankly all I hear is your commentary on the issue. I don't hear of any conversation taking place on the Hill.

Elliot

excon · Nov 2, 2007, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I'm listening, and frankly all I hear is your commentary on the issue.

Hello again, El:

It is true. I'm able to spot things going on around me that others aren't. I'm soooo ahead of the curve here. Keep listening - you'll hear it.

excon

speechlesstx · Nov 2, 2007, 09:30 AM

Ex, the Sentencing Commission, a rather diverse group of Reagan, Clinton, Bush appointees and others, submitted these guidelines to congress in May.

Interestingly enough, it was Clinton that refused to go along with equalizing crack and powder cocaine sentences and preached "the war on crime" in both presidential campaigns. Under Clinton, federal prisoners rose to 147,126, from 80,259 under Bush and 24,363 under Reagan. The rate of federal prisoners more than doubled from 17 per 100,000 under Reagan to 42 per 100,000 under Clinton, all according to statistics compiled by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Just thought you should know...

Anyway, something needs to be done. I don't get a disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine and I'm sure there are plenty of inmates that don't need to be incarcerated. I believe there are 119 state prisons in Texas, and as I understand it a proposition on the ballot next week disguised as money for state parks and facilities for the disabled, has money for 3 new prisons set aside. Enough already, I'm not in favor of building even more prisons to warehouse every drug user and other minor miscreant that gets busted. I don't know the answers, but there has to be one besides more and more prisons.

Steve