Law Enforcement Lobby Quietly Tries To Kill Sentencing Reform

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
n-HANDCUFFS-large.jpg


WASHINGTON -- Several organizations representing state and local law enforcement are quietly trying to kill a bipartisan bill that would roll back tough mandatory sentences for people convicted of federal drug offenses under legislation passed during the height of America’s drug war three decades ago.

These groups include the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National Association of Police Organizations and the Major County Sheriffs' Association, The Huffington Post has learned.

They hope to weaken congressional support for the Smarter Sentencing Act, which would reform the nation's mandatory minimum statutes, authorizing federal judges to sentence drug defendants to less time behind bars than what current law requires. The legislation passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, when, in a rare instance of bipartisan collaboration these days, Republicans Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona joined the committee’s Democrats in supporting the measure. Its House counterpart is still sitting in committee.

Republicans and Democrats alike have argued that the bill would allow the federal government to get control of its burgeoning prison budget and free up resources needed for other public safety initiatives, such as programs that help former prisoners find work and housing.

But Bob Bushman, president of the National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition, one of the groups fighting the bill, contends that state and local governments could end up bearing some of those same costs. To compensate for the federal government’s softer approach, he argues, states and counties would be compelled to lock up more people than they do now.

Major drug dealers “need to be locked up somewhere,” Bushman told HuffPost. “Some of these folks have worked hard to get to prison."

Supporters of the bill respond that this argument overlooks an important fact about federal prisons. “We have a lot of people in the federal system now who are not major dealers, people who are convicted of low-level drug, nonviolent crimes who do not deserve long sentences,” said Jesselyn McCurdy, an attorney in the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

A number of law enforcement agencies have already joined advocacy groups like the ACLU in endorsing the bill. They include the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the International Union of Police Associations, the American Correctional Association, the International Community Corrections Association and the American Probation and Parole Association. Attorney General Eric Holder backs the measure as well.

Bushman and his allies, however, aren’t the first law enforcement advocates to speak out against the bill. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys have also come out against federal sentencing reform in recent months. Unlike Bushman’s cohorts, both of these groups represent officials who work for the federal government, and both have stated their positions in public.

The National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National Sheriffs' Association and the other state and local groups have been working behind the scenes. Several of them had previously lined up against Debo Adegbile, the president's nominee to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and helped block his confirmation last month.

Lobbyists with the National Association of Police Organizations and other groups met with Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and John Walsh (D-Mont.) to discuss their opposition to the reform package.

A spokeswoman for the International Association of Chiefs of Police confirmed that the organization was lobbying against changes on Capitol Hill, but said it wasn't prepared to speak publicly on the topic.

Fred Wilson, an official with the National Sheriffs' Association, said his group isn't formally opposed to the legislation in principle but believes the bill needs more study -- even though it has already passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It may be [late], but our legislative folks seem to think not all is lost," Wilson said.

A letter from Bushman and his group to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) -- just one of several letters written by the Smarter Sentencing Act opponents that Bushman said are floating around Capitol Hill -- argues that federal policy should not be driven by "second-order effects of America’s drug problem" like incarceration costs.

If Bushman and his allies manage to undermine the bill, it won’t be the first time that members of law enforcement have successfully scaled down efforts to reform federal sentencing.

Several law enforcement organizations opposed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the disparity between mandatory minimum sentences for crack and powder cocaine. Under the previous law, the disproportionately large numbers of black men arrested for crack offenses faced far harsher sentences than their white counterparts, who were more likely to be arrested for offenses involving powder cocaine. Initially, some law enforcement groups suggested increasing the penalties for powder cocaine, rather than decreasing those for crack. Although that didn't happen, their opposition ultimately led to a compromise bill that significantly reduced, but didn't eliminate, the sentencing disparity.

Bushman said it was "a little early" to talk about whether law enforcement groups could be won over with a compromise bill this time, but said members of Congress first need to look at the "broader implications" of rolling back mandatory minimums.

Democratic congressional aides acknowledged that they have been speaking with a number of law enforcement groups about the bill and said they hoped some of the concerns raised would be addressed, but likewise noted it was still relatively early in the legislative process.

Link to news article

----------------------------------------------------------

I guess they are really worried about the money they have been raking in for years through the War on Drug effort will be cut off. Yet, L.E.A.P (Law enforcement against prohibition) has been pushing for this for a long time. http://www.leap.cc/
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I can understand this from law enforcement's perspective. In many cases, they arrest the same people over and over again.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I can understand this from law enforcement's perspective. In many cases, they arrest the same people over and over again.

Paring back mandatory sentences makes sense, but remember why they came into being. The first time a judge uses his new discretion to significantly reduce a sentence below what the community expects, there will be hell to pay for both the judge and politicians.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
This thread is about sentencing reform and certain unionized law enforcement organizations trying to sabotage any reform. This isn't about cop abuse, neglect or cop murdering people.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Holder calls for reduced sentences for low-level drug offenders

Quote: "“Certain types of cases result in too many Americans going to prison for far too long, and at times for no truly good public safety reason,” Holder told the U.S. Sentencing Commission. “Although the United States comprises just five percent of the world’s population, we incarcerate almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.”
 

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
I'm for reforming sentencing for non-violent drug offenses for weed, but I haven't read into this to see what all drugs they are going to reform. Frankly, I don't know enough about any other drug to make a determination for those, but I don't doubt that there are things other than MJ for which people get sentenced too harshly.

I don't think that they will enact it well, though. I mean, look at the article a week ago or so where a guy raped his 3 year old and only got probation -- or the whole "affluenza" nonsense. Too bad I don't have time to read the proposal. My personal belief may be optimistic, but I think that the benefits here will outweigh the consequences.

Even though it is mentioned that they're worried they might have to absorb the cost of some work/housing programs, what's that compared to $30,000 - $40, 000 per inmate? Nothing, they merely want you to think it's going to be some ridiculous burden by trying the lie of omission method of ignoring that they won't be spending the $30,000-$40,000 on top of the additional program requirements. The real burden on tax payers isn't TRULY attempting to rehabilite those with a low recidivism / real opportunity to change their ways, but the faux rehabilitation system currently in place. Even though the support system will probably be done just as poorly as the last so they can bilk billions of unnecessary dollars, I think I'd rather have some people that just made a mistake getting help so they can contribute more to society for little to no cost and high long-term benefit rather than shelling out $30-$40k a year to send them through the hardened-criminal factory.

I think their opposition is because they are worried they might lose some of their paramilitary troopers, not because the overwhelmingly likely result of this reform is beneficial.
 
Last edited:

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
I'm for reforming sentencing for non-violent drug offenses for weed, but I haven't read into this to see what all drugs they are going to reform. Frankly, I don't know enough about any other drug to make a determination for those, but I don't doubt that there are things other than MJ for which people get sentenced too harshly.

I don't think that they will enact it well, though. I mean, look at the article a week ago or so where a guy raped his 3 year old and only got probation -- or the whole "affluenza" nonsense. Too bad I don't have time to read the proposal. My personal belief may be optimistic, but I think that the benefits here will outweigh the consequences.

Even though it is mentioned that they're worried they might have to absorb the cost of some work/housing programs, what's that compared to $30,000 - $40, 000 per inmate? Nothing, they merely want you to think it's going to be some ridiculous burden. The real burden on tax payers isn't TRULY attempting to rehabilitee those with a low recidivism / real opportunity to change their ways, but the faux rehabilitation system currently in place. Even though the support system will probably be done just as poorly as the last so they can bilk billions of unnecessary dollars, I think I'd rather have some people that just made a mistake getting help so they can contribute more to society for little to no cost and high long-term benefit rather than shelling out $30-$40k a year to send them through the hardened-criminal factory.

I think their opposition is because they are worried they might lose some of their paramilitary troopers, not because the overwhelmingly likely result of this reform is beneficial.

Our US penal system has never been about rehabilitation but punishment and retribution.

People are being arrested for things like loitering on a side walk or walking across a street (jaywalking). These types of things shouldn't require jailing someone in my opinion. It seems that the law is very one sided and protects the wealthy or dare I say it? The white upper class, and then anyone who is poor or of color gets the book thrown at them. There is huge incentive for stiff jail/prison sentences as well due to the profit motive.
 

mrjminer

Platinum Member
Dec 2, 2005
2,739
16
76
Our US penal system has never been about rehabilitation but punishment and retribution.

People are being arrested for things like loitering on a side walk or walking across a street (jaywalking). These types of things shouldn't require jailing someone in my opinion. It seems that the law is very one sided and protects the wealthy or dare I say it? The white upper class, and then anyone who is poor or of color gets the book thrown at them. There is huge incentive for stiff jail/prison sentences as well due to the profit motive.

It's just money. I don't think you'd see the black equivalent of Bill Gates doing 3 years for loitering :O

The legal system is so unnecessarily complex it's understandable, though. The time and money involved with even the most minute offenses bar anyone without money from having a defense even remotely close to what even $50,000 would get them in terms of either manpower or caliber of lawyer. I would guess that a better ratio to look at would probably be something like rate of public defenders vs. paid lawyers by pay.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Our US penal system has never been about rehabilitation but punishment and retribution.

People are being arrested for things like loitering on a side walk or walking across a street (jaywalking). These types of things shouldn't require jailing someone in my opinion. It seems that the law is very one sided and protects the wealthy or dare I say it? The white upper class, and then anyone who is poor or of color gets the book thrown at them. There is huge incentive for stiff jail/prison sentences as well due to the profit motive.
There are valid reasons beyond racism for much of this. The proportion of people supporting a crack cocaine habit with crime is much higher than the proportion of people supporting a white powder cocaine habit with crime.

It's just money. I don't think you'd see the black equivalent of Bill Gates doing 3 years for loitering :O

The legal system is so unnecessarily complex it's understandable, though. The time and money involved with even the most minute offenses bar anyone without money from having a defense even remotely close to what even $50,000 would get them in terms of either manpower or caliber of lawyer. I would guess that a better ratio to look at would probably be something like rate of public defenders vs. paid lawyers by pay.
Nor is the black equivalent of Bill Gates casing your house or driving away customers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.