New Criminal Justice Reform Law Releases Violent Felons, Not Peaceful Drug Dealers

If Van Jones, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Kim Kardashian all agree on a bill, it’s probably not a good idea. Republicans and Democrats came together to pass the FIRST STEP Act into law this month, which will allow felons early release. It’s being touted as a criminal justice system overhaul, to let nonviolent offenders out of prison for good behavior.

But as Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who graduated from Harvard Law School, observed, “there are almost no low-level, non-violent offenders in federal prison.” If they are in prison for low-level convictions, it’s because they were allowed to plea down to a lesser charge. If they are serving a long-term sentence for a drug-related crime, it is because they have a lengthy criminal history that includes violent crime. They are serving a mandatory minimum due to their criminal history.

The law will trigger the immediate release of an estimated 4,000 federal offenders out of the 180,000 currently incarcerated. This is twice as many prisoners as those whose sentences were selectively commuted by President Obama. That number will greatly increase over time. The Bureau of Prisons and Congressional Budget Office estimates roughly 53,000 prisoners could be released over the next 10 years. That is almost one third of the prisoners in federal prison!

This misguided bill would allow violent offenders out early for merely doing what they were already doing in prison — engage in vaguely defined “productive activities.” This includes playing softball and watching movies, according to the Bureau of Prisons.

The bill excludes some violent crimes from eligibility for early release, but not all of them. Some of the dozens of dangerous offenses that are eligible include drug-related robberies involving assault with a dangerous weapon, using a deadly weapon to assault a law-enforcement officer, assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to a spouse or child and violent carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury.

The bill gives judges more discretion to ignore mandatory minimums for criminals with prior records. How does giving activist judges more power to ignore sentencing laws and lengthy criminal histories help anything? Instead they can pretend they’re merely sentencing a felon for drug crimes, keep that fake mantra going.

The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys is concerned that the bill is modeled after “successful” state criminal justice reforms. As many as 77 percent of state inmates are rearrested within five years of release. In contrast, only 24 percent of federal inmates are rearrested in that time period. How have those state reforms been a success?

Kardashian has made it her mission to get felons released early from prison who are serving long sentences for drug related offenses. She convinced President Trump to grant clemency to Alice Marie Johnson, a woman serving a life sentence for a nonviolent drug conviction. The indictment described Johnson as a leader in a multi-million dollar cocaine ring. But what is the whole story? What was her criminal background before that, were there violent crimes? It is highly unlikely the reason she was sentenced to life in prison was due to the drug charges alone. But the media won’t report the full story and much of her criminal history is withheld from the public by law. Her incomplete story is now the poster child for this law.

How did this flawed bill get passed? It was misdescribed. Letting “low-level nonviolent offenders” shave a few years off of long sentences sounds reasonable. No one wants to go on record sounding like they oppose that. And it’s difficult to prove the bill is flawed, because so much of a felon’s criminal history is unavailable to the public. Only the prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys and law enforcement agents who deal with felons every day know the real story behind these types of felons (even the judges aren’t necessarily allowed access to their full criminal records). And they are overwhelmingly against the bill. Several of these national law enforcement agencies submitted letters to Congress warning that the bill will endanger public safety.

The legislation will not reduce future crime. It will not make our communities safer. Sen. Cotton says the way to remedy injustices in the system is to allow the president to choose who to pardon or provide clemency. Not allow thousands of felons out indiscriminately.

These types of things go in cycles. After violent crime inevitably starts sharply increasing, Congress will change the laws again to impose tougher penalties. But by then it will have been too late. How many innocent people will have to die first?

Opponents of this bill must demand meticulous tracking of every inmate who gets Early Release.

If a former inmate gets arrested or convicted for a new crime, that information needs to go straight into a public data base.

Trump frequently talks about the crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

The voters who oppose this bill must be able to hold Trump accountable for the new crimes that will be committed by the criminals that Trump releases from prison.

Re: “Most of these people are in Federal prisons for offenses that never should have been considered Federal crimes in the first place.”

In that case, Trump should have pardoned them or commuted their sentences months ago.

Why should the Democrats get any political credit since Trump can correct every injustice without them?

I hear you, I just get ticked off about this crap. I still have raw memories of our last round of ‘Criminal Justice Reform’ in the 1960s and 1970s, when we blamed prisons and society for making people violent, so we sprung the felons and had the largest crime wave in this country’s history.

So far I’ve seen NOTHING to imply that this experiment with ‘Criminal Justice Reform’ will end any differently - if anything, today’s criminals have been taught by the Democrats to be even more violent and hate-filled. We will, again, have thousands (or millions) more crime victims than we would otherwise have if these ‘reforms’ don’t quickly stop.

Just look at what happened to the murder rate in New York City between 1993 (when they gave up on the the earlier round of ‘Criminal Justice Reform’ and started locking people up again) and now - the murder rate dropped by 90%, from about 2000 to 200. There are literally tens of thousands of innocent people in New York who would be dead if they hadn’t ended their experiment with ‘Criminal Justice Reform’, but instead they get to live out their lives, as all of us should get to.

This is a racist “thing,” and everyone on this forum knows it!

An article re state recidivism statistics can be found at “2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-Year Follow-up Period (2005-2014)” https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf

A similar article re: federal recidivism statistics can be found at “Recidivism & Federal Sentencing Policy” https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/backgrounders/RG-recidivism-overview.pdf

In all of this, though, what seeps through is that both sides of the argument have fierce proponents and it is difficult to sift through the wheat and chaff to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

It is noteworthy that I did not see any correlation between state prisoners released who later were sentenced to a federal prison nor federal prisoners released who later were sentenced to a state prison.

I predict that this “reform law” will not end well for anybody.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.