Tweets President Trump as the Senate passes the criminal justice reform bill, voting 87-12, AP reports:
The bill gives judges more discretion when sentencing some drug offenders and boosts prisoner rehabilitation efforts. It also reduces the life sentence for some drug offenders with three convictions, or “three strikes,” to 25 years. The changes would only apply to federal prisoners.Obviously, 87-12 is bipartisan. So who were the 12 nay votes? All Republican:
The Senate vote is the culmination of years of negotiations aimed at addressing concerns that the nation’s war on drugs has exploded the prison population without helping people prepare for their return to society.
Barrasso (R-WY)Not voting was Lindsey Graham.
Cotton (R-AR)
Enzi (R-WY)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Risch (R-ID)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Let's just focus on Marco Rubio. I'm picking him because he's the most prominent person on that list — I thought he was going to be the GOP presidential nominee in 2016 — and it so happens that he was on a Fox News radio show yesterday morning and addressed the bill:
Let me just tell you that I think everyone is in favor of the first part of that bill which I've long supported as a separate bill and that is the idea that if someone is going to get out of jail anyway, they're scheduled to be out of jail in 10 years, 5 years or 15 years it behooves us, it's in our interest, to make sure that those people have training and those people have skills acquisition and the kinds of things that you need in order to be successful so you don't go back to jail. The second part of it is what's troubling and that is the incentive that they want to use to get these people to take these services is a reduction on the back end, a credit time, credit for the back end where they're able to serve part of the sentence in a halfway house or even in non-detention home probation. Whatever it might be. And then on the front end also reducing some mandatory sentences for certain cases. That's the part that I get nervous about because ultimately you're talking about some very bad people that have done some horrible things. We have to be very careful when we start walking in that direction. I think mandatory minimum sentences can sometimes have impacts that you look at it and say aren't fair, but we also have to recognize mandatory and minimum sentences have taken really terrible human beings off the streets for long periods of time. The best way to prevent a criminal from committing another crime is to not let them get out there... I'm not sure given the Amendments that are out there that they could ever get to the point where I'm 100% confident. I don't understand why we didn't just do this for a small select group of crimes and start from there and build it up as oppose to the reverse, but they've decided to take a huge bite of the apple. If I'm uncomfortable in the end I'm going to air [sic] on the side of public safety and vote against it.
Posts
45 comments:
I don't think Obama EVER had a bill where only Dems voted against it and there were more than 10.
This kind of "real bi-partisan" should be recognized, and is far more than a bill where all on one side vote one way, and all but less than 10 vote another. Perhaps one sould quantify "bi-partisanship": 10%, 20%, 30% ... 90%, 100% "bi-partisan" when 10 or more of the minority party voting on it, vote in favor.
This bill is "proof" that Obama was more polarized than is Trump.
Funny, "air" and "err" are synonyms, and it's obvious a Rep would want to err on the side of (too much?) safety.
Good for Trump! And for Kushner!
So now we all need to square this with handling of porch pirates. Are glitter bombs enough and then let them go on their merry way? Sometimes I think a sort of public shaming should be allowed for stuff like porch pirates. Jail, and certainly prison, probably isn't needed, but something is needed to make taking from others seem more of a pain than either going without or buying your own.
Alas, I think the bigger problem with the CJ system is arrests of non-violent drug users.
"Funny, "air" and "err" are synonyms, and it's obvious a Rep would want to err on the side of (too much?) safety."
You mean homonyms (homophones), but in fact, the correct pronunciation of "err" rhymes with "her." I know this, but I insist on saying it wrong. But if you listen to serious newscasters — there are some — you'll hear the officially correct pronunciation.
Rush Limbaugh uses the correct pronunciation (I assume because he learned it in his early radio days).
didn't marco rubio used to be a republican? i mean, back before he defined himself as the antitrump?
"Jail, and certainly prison, probably isn't needed..." Really? These people are stealing things. That's probably one of the most basic crimes that law enforcement was created to deal with. Why wouldn't you jail someone how makes stealing things a way of life?
"didn't marco rubio used to be a republican? i mean, back before he defined himself as the antitrump?"
He's taking the strong law-and-order position. Tough on crime.
Seems more Republican than Trump.
This is a common sense bill and it would be well for states to adopt similar measures. Here in AZ, a person convicted of possession of a small amount of marijuana--a felony here--can serve from 6 months to 15 years in prison, similar to someone caught with 80 pounds of meth.
Six months for murder and life for 3 non-violent offenses?
The American justice "system" appears more like a Wheel of Misfortune, but so be it.
I think inherent in the way this country was put together and unavoidable.
Seems like Federal-level criminals would be the kingpins and corporate crooks and not need job-training, but who knows? They've made a Federal Case out of so many crimes.
I'm afraid Trump will glom onto anything that makes him look successful. And "criminal justice reform" sounds much better than "letting criminals out of prison."
But this bill has been in the works for a long time as a sop to blacks. And the sjw's have been busy with their equally vague "jail diversion" project.
So, watch yer back.
“This is a common sense bill and it would be well for states to adopt similar measures. Here in AZ, a person convicted of possession of a small amount of marijuana--a felony here--can serve from 6 months to 15 years in prison, similar to someone caught with 80 pounds of meth.”
Mockturtle, is it at all ironic that you are in agreement with Jeff Flake and at odds with Jon Kyl?
Law and order Republicans are so ‘70s!
Mockturtle, is it at all ironic that you are in agreement with Jeff Flake and at odds with Jon Kyl?
Ironic, perhaps. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Thomas Jefferson thought judges should stand for election every year to make sure they were in tune with the people's passions of the moment.
Good on Rubio. This bill is a compendium of lies. We decimated the stranger and serial rape rate in Florida with a bill Charlie Crist pushed back before he got weird, simply by imposing a mandatory minimum on sex crimes that judges couldn't circumvent and by requiring that repeat and violent offenders serve 80% of their sentences. It takes a hell of a lot of recidivism to be even prosecuted for one crime. Statistics based merely on convictions are meaningless. You need to see the pleas, what was taken off the table, and understand that our court system is so underfunded that prosecutors (outside political shenanigan prosecutions) at both the federal and state levels are merely doing triage with the worst of the worst.
In Florida, it was too late for me and thousands of other women (my rapist had been released early at least three times, perhaps more as juvie records were sealed, prior to my attack, serving less than two years each time, and would get another bite at the apple with a fourth early release before we passed the enhancement laws), but it saved tens of thousands from being raped by men released early from a previous rape conviction in Florida alone.
So what does this have to do with the federal bill, you might ask. It's all the same players, the same movement. They are laying the groundwork in the states already. The movement to replicate the federal legislation in the states is the real ambition of this movement -- it is already underway and will get hundreds of thousands, if not millons, of women raped by strangers because one of their main "reforms," already passed in some states, involves dramatically cutting the time and circumstances under which juvenile offenders serve for even violent crimes. Judges are already expressing dismay that they can only sentence even the worst juvenile criminals to a few years for assaults, shootings, murders and rapes.
Thank your congressmen and senators and Trump for getting women raped, today! I know I am. And Hagar, you and Trump don't know squat about strikes laws. The propaganda and lies used by these activists is risible. Give me any case and twenty five bucks to pull up the full arrest, charge, plea and nolle prosequi record of these thugs, and I'll show you the truth. Or, do it yourself. Or listen to Daniel Horowitz for ten minutes and you'll see how little you actually know about the real records of these people.
It took us years to fix the pro-criminal excesses of the Sixties. Now it's all being torn down. Hope it's not your loved ones with a gun to the head.
“Ironic, perhaps. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
Who’s the clock in this analogy? ;-)
"This will keep our communities safer"
This is a lie.
On the order of, if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
From a family of career, big city Police I would recommend obtaining a CCW, price out effective home alarm systems and buying bear spray for the women and children..
Peter Grant has an excellent book on prison that is eye opening. It’s on kindle unlimited. Walls, wires, bars, and souls.
Jobs and single parent households are part of the problem.
Alas, I think the bigger problem with the CJ system is arrests of non-violent drug users.
Here in California, no one goes to prison for drug use, not even if they steal packages off people porches.
Little Marco is fear-mongering about non-violent criminals. Very milquetoast of him.
Stevew. Grow a pair and use your real name and I can educate you about the real consequences of this bill.
And I promise you I hate Rubio far more than you do. But he did the right thing, and few else did.
And they aren't non-violent. There are zero non-violent people in prisons.
Tina Trent said...
"Or listen to Daniel Horowitz for ten minutes and you'll see how little you actually know about the real records of these people."
I'd like to. Got a link?
As I said earlier: Criminal Justice reform is ALWAYS about putting more convicted felons on the street and not much else. Mandatory sentences are to counter judges who are too discriminatory or too lenient. Judicial discretion is also about more convicted criminals on the streets.
Judges like to forgive. It makes them feel divine.
Why must the federal government have so many criminal offenses? The change in the numbers of things the geds criminalize is astounding.
Anybody who thinks the federal government needs more and longer criminal laws is rejecting federalism.
That is, the people so doing are not conservative.
“Here in AZ, a person convicted of possession of a small amount of marijuana--a felony here--can serve from 6 months to 15 years in prison, similar to someone caught with 80 pounds of meth.”
Not so, mockturtle, possession of a small quantity (less than 2 lbs.) is a class 6 felony with an aggravated max of two years. It can also be reduced to a misdemeanor by the judge. Possession for sale of a small quantity may carry a heavier penalty, but that is a different offense. The max (aggravated) is 3.75 years.
stevew said...
“Little Marco is fear-mongering about non-violent criminals. Very milquetoast of him.”
There are lots of non-violent crimes, not so many non-violent criminals.
Is this it?
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/criminal-justice-reform-or-jailbreak-heres-the-truth/
Not so, mockturtle, possession of a small quantity (less than 2 lbs.) is a class 6 felony with an aggravated max of two years. It can also be reduced to a misdemeanor by the judge. Possession for sale of a small quantity may carry a heavier penalty, but that is a different offense. The max (aggravated) is 3.75 years.
A fellow grand juror who is a prison officer said there are some incarcerated who have served between ten and fifteen years for possession of small amounts of MJ. So maybe he is wrong? BTW, he doesn't think it's excessive and decries the fact that 'some of them are back out in the street in 6 months'.
The best way to prevent a criminal from committing another crime is to not let them get out there
So, death sentence or life without parole for everyone! Sure we can afford that! We have money to burn when we ignore facts.
The best ways to help someone succeed after release from incarceration is 1) jobs, 2) housing, and 3) connection to the community. Almost all of those in prison (violent and nonviolent alike) will come home to the community. If prisons help them prepare for life on the outside, they have a better chance of success.
The FirstStep Act is far from an ideal bill but we may find some good stuff in it. The trick will be finding legislators who will be willing to fix what isn't good.
I believe there are individuals lacking conscience who are lifelong criminals. It is estimated that these sociopaths make up 3-5% of the population. IMO, these people cannot ever be rehabilitated. Nor can child sex predators and other sexual psychopaths. There needs to be a triage based on personal history and behavior before anyone is paroled.
And, frankly, the laws in most states are a mess and need to be rewritten. I assume the same is true of federal laws.
And clear out death row! Why should these monsters live to a ripe old age after being sentenced to death??!! Charles Manson comes to mind but there are thousands on death row. Have an 'Execution Day'. Just do it.
When are conservatives going to start protecting the 9th and 10th Amendments?
There are proper state versus federal roles.
Federal criminal law is too expansive by far.
Well, I apparently touched some super sensitive nerves. I don't hate Marco Rubio, merely pointing out that he is fear-mongering in his arguments against this bill.
Maybe he's right, though 87 senators disagree. All that I've read about this law refers to non-violent crimes. But I'm no expert and haven't studied it completely, so who among you can send me a link proving that my understanding is incorrect? Tina? hombre?
price out effective home alarm systems
Yes, with one caveat. And this was told to me by a long-time friend who's also a cop:
Don't purchase the monthly monitoring fee/service.
Simply have it hooked up to the loudest outdoor siren you can find.
Birkel, you are right. The 9A and 10A have been forgotten. I bring them up a lot; probably not often enough.
mockturtle said,
IMO, these people cannot ever be rehabilitated. Nor can child sex predators and other sexual psychopaths.
The language about sex offenses (predators!) is geared to generate fear. If you pay attention to news stories (and what news outlet can resist a sex crime?), you'll see that most sex crimes (~95%) are committed by first-time offenders, leaving only a small percentage committed by re-offenders. The next arrest for a sex offense in your community will most likely be of someone NOT on the registry.
Prairie wind: 'Sex crimes' covers a lot of territory including what we used to call 'statutory rape'. I used the term sexual psychopath in the diagnostic sense and which does not refer to a 20-year-old man who has consensual sex with a teen-aged girl [or boy].
mockturtle,
Trying using the term federalism appropriately.
The overreach of the federal government should concern us all.
The power the feds exercise can do magnificent harm.
See, e.g. Mueller
mockturtle,
Trying using the term federalism appropriately.
The overreach of the federal government should concern us all.
The power the feds exercise can do magnificent harm.
Birkel, I did not use the term federalism.
And I agree the federal government is much too powerful and invasive. Where did I say otherwise?
mockturtle,
Anybody arguing against teducing the federal government's role in criminal law enforcement is arguing against federalism.
The vast majority of property crime is committed by a small percentage of criminals. Locking them up for long terms after they have established a pattern of behavior simply makes sense.
The real problem is the fact that young Black males (less than 5% of the population) commit the majority of crime. This makes our judicial system a target for cries of racism, and has destroyed Black communities. Rather than try and deal with this problem, Black leadership and popular culture participates in the glorification of thug life.
All issues states should handle under our system, Gahrie.
Laboratories of democracy and all that.
And who can forget the NY Times headline:
Prison Population Growing Although Crime Rate Drops
Post a Comment