With the U.S. facing massive overcrowding in its prisons, Attorney General Eric Holder today announced that the Department of Justice will scale back the use of mandatory minimum prison terms for certain drug-related crimes.

Holder said he would alter Justice Department policy so that low-level, nonviolent drug offenders with no ties to large-scale organizations, gangs or cartels won’t be charged with offenses that impose those mandatory minimum sentences.

America, he told a meeting of the American Bar Association, will begin ‘fundamentally rethinking the notion of mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes.’

{snip}

‘People of color’ in the federal criminal justice system ‘often face harsher punishments than their peers,’ he said.

‘One deeply troubling report, released in February, indicates that–in recent years–black male offenders have received sentences nearly 20 percent longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes. This isn’t just unacceptable–it is shameful.’

Holder said he had ‘directed a group of U.S. Attorneys to examine sentencing disparities, and to develop recommendations on how we can address them.’

{snip}

Hilary Shelton, the director of the the NAACP’s Washington Bureau and the group’s senior vice president for policy and advocacy, said Holder’s message is long overdue.

Race ‘is a major component’ in the lack of fairness in sentencing laws, Shelton told MailOnline.

‘There’s a need for us to address these overly punitive measures, especially when there’s a racial component.’

‘Congress addressed this by recalibrating the sentencing disparities in 2010,’ Shelton said, and ‘they noted the racial differences in sentencing as well.’

{snip}

Some sort of reform is needed, says the American Civil Liberties Union, even if it’s not informed by perceptions of racism. Fully 60 per cent of federal drug offenders, the ACLU notes, received mandatory minimum sentences in 2012. One-third of them were sentenced to 10-year terms or longer.

Typically under federal law, crack cocaine users–most often black defendants–who possess only 28 grams of the drug are charged with felonies. Meanwhile, historically white powder cocaine users are not charged with felonies unless they are caught with 500 grams.

That 18-to-1 disparity was 100-to-1 until Congress acted in 2010. But incarceration at the federal level, say some, is still applied in a fashion that appears to play racial favorites.

‘As the so-called “war on drugs” enters its fifth decade,’ Holder said Monday, ‘we need to ask whether it, and the approaches that comprise it, have been truly effective–and build on the Administration’s efforts, led by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to usher in a new approach.’

‘Some statutes that mandate inflexible sentences . . . have had a destabilizing effect on particular communities, largely poor and of color,’ he added. {snip}

Part of that dysfunction involves overcrowding in the federal prison system, which is now 40 per cent over capacity with 219,000 inmates. {snip}

‘In Texas,’ Holder said Monday, ‘investments in drug treatment for nonviolent offenders and changes to parole policies brought about a reduction in the prison population of more than 5,000 inmates last year alone. The same year, similar efforts helped Arkansas reduce its prison population by more than 1,400.’

‘Federal prosecutors, he explained, ‘cannot–and should not–bring every case or charge every defendant who stands accused of violating federal law.’

Devolving some cases to state or local law enforcers, he suggested, would free up federal government resources while also emphasizing community-level policing.

{snip}

‘Aggressive enforcement of federal criminal laws is necessary,’ Holder said Monday, ‘but we cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation.’

‘Today, a vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities. However, many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate this problem, rather than alleviate it.’

‘We need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, deter and rehabilitate–not merely to convict, warehouse and forget,’ said the attorney general.

Holder said mandatory minimum sentences ‘breed disrespect for the system. When applied indiscriminately, they do not serve public safety. They have had a disabling effect on communities. And they are ultimately counterproductive.’

Senators Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, Mike Lee, an Utah Republican, and Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, have introduced legislation aimed at giving federal judges more discretion in applying mandatory minimums to certain drug offenders.

{snip}

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • NYtimes article “Dept. Of Justice seeks to curtail stiff drug sentences” says the prosecutor could no longer say the “suspect conspired to distribute five kilograms of cocaine”, but then goes on to say that the amount would still be taken into consideration when consulting sentencing guidelines. Which makes no sense.

  • me

    Holder should be not only dismissed from his position as Attorney General, but brought up on charges of discriminatory racism, treason, abuse of a public office, corruption, and anything else we can throw at this piece of fecal matter.

  • din_do_nuffins

    “Blacks are very aggressive and they feel empowered with one of their own as president and Eric Holder as Attorney General. But what we see now is nothing compared to what we can expect in the future when violence against Whites will go unprosecuted, not just ignored by the media.”

    -Kevin MacDonald, Occidental Observer, 2012

    Holder advocates racially profiling blacks for easy sentences.

    Evidently, racial profiling has it’s place. I’ll do more of it, our way.

    • Gereng

      I fully agree with professor MacDonald and his various writings on racial differences
      and their effects on a society where two vastly different peoples must live in near proximity to one another.

  • TheCogitator

    The war on drug is really a war on people, and it should be stopped. That being said, Holder is not about doing anything other than going easier on blacks. I’ll bet he won’t give any breaks to white people.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      I wonder if we did legalize drugs and then blacks still kept getting effed up and whacking each other over idiotic stuff…would they start then blaming us for legalizing it?

      I can hear it now…

      “The White man legalized drugs, knowing full well what a holocaust it would create in black communities!”

      Who knows, eh? I think some drugs should be legalized. Probably would actually cost more all factors considered, lol…

      • I think drugs ought to be legalized, but I also think everyone on any sort of public assistance should have to pass random drug tests.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          That would serve one of two purposes, logically.

          1. Save money on welfare payouts, or…

          2. Reduce drug use…BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          I largely agree, especially for penny ante stuff like the weed. Waste of time.

        • Nathanwartooth

          Oh absolutely. But the thing is, they would have to be blood or hair tests.

          In Flordia they tried that and hardly anyone failed. The reason being is that pee tests are ridiculously easy to pass. Especially if the person administering the test doesn’t care.

          If you are in the room alone you can pour out pee you carried in with you. You can heat it in the car using the heater first. You can get it to like 110 and then let it cool down. I used to do this all the time. If someone is in there with you, you can try the fake wiener. My friend did that once and it worked pretty well. Especially since most guy wont take a close look to make sure it’s real. You can also use a hose and hold it against the side of your wiener so it looks like you are peeing but it’s really coming from the hose.

          The other method is drink a TON of water and eat vitamins about one day before you have to take the test. Your pee will be so diluted that nothing will show up. But it will also be yellow because you ate so many vitamins.

          Alright, I know way too much about this, haha. But the point is you can’t do pee tests and expect too many people to fail.

    • gemjunior

      Yes. Kevin McDonald knew that a long time ago, as Din Do Nuffin said above. He won’t give any breaks to white people. I wonder what it will take before the average white sees this and starts commenting on it? Am I wrong to be hopeful?

  • bigone4u

    Equal Justice Under the Law? RIP, courtesy of pro-black, anti-white racist Eric Holder.

  • In one important change, the attorney general is altering Justice Department policy so that low-level, non-violent drug offenders with no ties to large-scale organizations, gangs or cartels won’t be charged with offenses that impose mandatory minimum sentences.

    The problem is that that statement assumes that “drug criminals” only fit into one of two neat boxes: Either small time recreational users or people who are seriously into or closely linked to the big time drug cartels. It’s part and parcel of this wrong-headed propensity we have to blame all black crime on black gangs, mainly because doing so makes “solving” crime as easy as “solving” gangs, and therefore, whetting the whistle of the emerging gang mitigation-industrial complex. When in reality, most black crime has nothing to do with gangs; it’s just typical bell curve behavior, or, another day in the hood.

    The middle ground that Eric “My People” Holder seems to miss, or doesn’t want us to think about, are the people who are in prison officially for a conviction of drug possession or small time dealing, but in reality they pled guilty to that in exchange for a lot more serious charges getting pled out and a prison bid on the long end of what is allowed by law for those drug crimes. Which means the black doing a 20 bid for “weed” was probably a dealer who also committed many other violent crimes in his life. Such a person does not have “ties to large-scale organizations, gangs or cartels,” but on the other hand, he’s not just a recreational user, either. So this policy change would mean that many more of these types, the boxed-up Schrodinger’s Cats that could be both dead and alive simultaneously, would be doing far less time in prison.

    • Except in this case, where he probably did know some cartel gang-banger:

      www(dot)paradisegone(dot)com/2012/11/05/what-to-do-after-getting-busted-with-135-pounds-of-marijuana/

      And this information, the size of the bust, would be suppressed. He got 10 months for anyone that doesn’t want to go to the post. Then he went back to SD and changed his name. From Ohio, busted in SD on his way to Washington state, name changed in SD after released from prison.

    • The problem is that that statement assumes that “drug criminals” only fit into one of two neat boxes: Either small time recreational users or people who are seriously into or closely linked to the big time drug cartels.

      As most know, i’m a 22 year criminal justice veteran. (no, you don’t get to know the state or department I work in for obvious reasons) due to my current job I get to see the NCIC criminal histories of large number of people on a daily basis. At least in my state, the idea that our prisons are filled with “harmless droug related cases” is a myth.
      Yes, the majority of prison inmates are indeed in for a drug related offense. But most of these are those who commited personal or property crimes related to their drug habit. Do you know what the most common Originally Offense of Record that comes across my desk is? Burglary of a Habitation, followed closely by Possession of Cocaine with an Intent to Deliver. These are hardly “harmless” folks.
      Likewise, a popular talking point of the pro-crimnal/pro-drug crowd is that our prisons are filled with harmless pot smokers. This is also a myth. Those are the guys who get the traffic fine level mistamenor convictions. The relatively small number of people who offense was Posession of a Controlled Substance Marijuana are doing time because they had distribution level amounts. (ie they were drug dealers)
      Bottom line is that those who are in prison for “drug related offenses” DESERVE to be there.

      • On rare occasion, I’ll read stories about people who possessed small amounts of weed getting actual prison time. But they always happen in rural counties, and the people so sentenced are personae non gratae in their areas. Interpersonal politics are far more crucial in small towns and rural areas.

        The reason that prisons aren’t full of people whose only crime is smoking pot is because we don’t have enough prison space. Incarceration is expensive; governments aren’t going to imprison or jail anyone they don’t think they have to.

        My idea for drug policy is continuing to thump the dealers, and while not necessarily legalizing possession of user-level amounts, but instead doing summary confiscation without criminal sanction of small amounts. (And definitely continuing to convict on the personal/property crimes that sprout from drug usage.) In other words, cop catches you with enough weed to roll a joint, he takes the weed, and that’s it. The beauty of summary confiscation without criminal sanction is that it’s both a continued societal cue that illicit drugs should be avoided and eliminating most but not all of the Bill of Rights shredding that comes from the laughable/dangerous “war on drugs.” And if a small time user keeps having their weed summarily confiscated, it also means his money keeps on being wasted, and maybe it’ll sink in that there are better uses for his $10 bills.

        It is my observation that most of the inmates in prison for “drug related offenses” really committed a lot of personal and/or property crimes that were pled out in exchange for a guilty plea on the drug crime and a bid on the long end of what is legally allowed for that long bid. It’s far easier for prosecutors to convict on drug cases than personal/property crimes, because drug cases have no direct human victims that are too scared to testify or too given to racial solidarity to testify.

        • Nathanwartooth

          Someone I know got busted with a small amount of weed and spent 2 weeks in jail in a rural county in Ohio.

  • CJ Haze

    Anyone else see The Five bring this up? Not a peep about black activists lobbying for this due to disparate impact on the black population.

    They get to the edge of racialist issues but won’t dive in. Thus is the life of a television slave.

  • Pax Romana

    ‘Says law enforcement is biased against blacks.’…….Says the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, Eric Holder, who is biased against Whites.

    The facts are, any reported drop in crime over the past few years is likely due to more black males being behind bars. Putting them back on the streets will only reverse that trend.

  • ravitchn

    When it comes to blacks the Alice in Wonderland method is best: sentencing first, verdict later.

  • ravitchn

    My only hope is this: the racist left, black and white, will finally get so extreme that any sensible white person will see that something drastic must be done: some possibilities are 1) confinement of black youth in concentration camps; 2) resegregation where possible; 3) incentives for blacks to emigrate out of this country.

    • IstvanIN

      ..or disincentives to stay.

  • APaige

    I have yet to see any study that shows blacks receive harsher punishments for the SAME (not similar) crime and that takes prior criminal record into consideration as a Judge would use to decide punishment. Anyone know of a study?

  • IstvanIN

    just what we need, an entire society of zombies.

    • I had only recently found out that Gene Simmons does not drink, nor has ever done drugs. He doesn’t even have tattoos. I’m guessing that if he had ever been tempted, all he had to do was look at what substance abuse did to Peter Criss and Ace Frehley. Having to live around it could scare you away from it. He makes no apologies about how the band would lose an entire day’s worth of sessions because one guy was either too hungover to play, or showed up late, if he even showed up at all.

      My stepfather was an alcoholic, yet I might have one alcoholic drink about once a year. My last drink was during the Super Bowl, and that was the first one in almost a year.

      If you want to go ahead and make drugs legal, go ahead. You will be less competition to me, and we all know which political party the dopeheads will support. If you are white and dumb enough to get caught up in the drug scene, then you aren’t much use to us.

      • gemjunior

        It’s not just whether or not you’re “dumb enough to get caught up in the drug scene,” really it isn’t. I think the Oxycontins and Percocets that were definitely overprescribed in the past two decades have ended up causing the biggest heroin addiction scourge this country has ever had – much worse than the 60s and 70s. More young white men in America are killed by this than die in foreign wars. Believe me, if you have teenage or young adults you had better not leave any of the prescribed painkillers such as hydrocodone or oxycodone in your medicine cabinet. Oxycontins cost $50 on the street, even more depending on the strength. I have so many stories of young people, good young white promising athletic church-going lovely children ending up on this particular drug by accident and destroying their lives. Thank God my own son has one of his Aspergery black and white thinking dire hatreds of drugs, or he’d be easy meat for drugs and alcohol.. I have a strong feeling that this narcotic scourge that hits well-to-do families and hopefuls is no accident. I really do believe that.

        • saxonsun

          Heroin can also be ordered online.

          • IanJMacDonald

            Despite our drug war? Not a surprise. We can’t even keep drugs out of our nations PRISONS.

            What more evidence does anyone need that the “war on drugs” is a failure?

    • IanJMacDonald

      In many ways we already have a nation of zombies.

      I would point out that for most of our nation’s history we had freedom of choice in what we ingested, and yet we somehow managed to get along fine. In more recent time, Portugal, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and many other European countries have aside the failed American “drug war” model, and have not turned into a “nation of zombies.”

      I do not support the idea of putting our fellow citizens into cages for the non-violent victimless so-called “crime” of ingesting dried vegetables products. The “drug war” has done more than anything else to turn America into a militarized police state.

      I propose a new rule: if it grows naturally, it is legal. If on the other hand it comes out of a laboratory, then yes, you can make the case for regulation.

      How can you possibly make something illegal that grows naturally? What are you saying? That God made a mistake?

      Time to call off the war on dried vegetables.

    • Whitetrashgang

      Not only Zombies, but people who don’t work for a living but steal instead.

  • APaige

    I was always under the impression that ‘mandatory minimums’ were put in place by legislators because of the leniency of Judges.

    • sbuffalonative

      It just goes round and round.

      People were frustrated by revolving door justice and easy sentencing. Liberal justices were too easily swayed by ‘hard-luck’ appeals.

      Black criminals are going to return to black neighborhoods and turn them into battle zones.

      In a few years, watch for mandatory sentences to return.

      • Sick of it

        I think people are more than just frustrated when murderers and rapists get less time than a guy with a DUI. Not that I support DUIs, but this is a matter of common sense.

  • sbuffalonative

    In a couple years when black criminals control black neighborhoods, blacks are going to be demanding the return of mandatory sentences.

    • ncpride

      Then we’ll be right back to where we are now in 20 years. When it comes to blacks, it’s always the same old story: Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

      • sbuffalonative

        I lived in NYC during the ‘crack epidemic’. It was blacks in black neighborhoods who demanded tougher penalties for crack pushers.

        Now they’re claiming that crack users and dealers (blacks) receive harsher sentences than cocaine users and dealers (whites).

        Lies lies lies. Black were the ones who wanted to get tough on crack dealers.

        • Sick of it

          Ahh but notice who’s complaining the most…certainly not the little old ladies who are afraid of getting robbed.

  • Nick Gherz

    While I agree that some [drug] laws are draconian, Holder is not actually authorized to wield unchecked power as such.

    It’s the job of congress & state governing bodies to change laws.

  • sbuffalonative

    ‘Progressive’ liberals (and conservatives and libertarians) claims that drug laws are used to oppress minorities. It’s a long standing conspiracy theory.

    The reason drugs are illegal is because too many people use them irresponsibly causing harm to themselves, their families, and others.

    An example.

    About 10 years ago, their was a drug called Fen Phen that people used as an appetite suppressant. You could buy it in health food stores and it was on the market for years. (I had never heard of it until it was banned.)

    Then one day, some girl took a fist full of the stuff and her heart gave out and she died. Immediately the parents demand and got Fen Phen banned.

    That’s why drugs are illegal.

    If current illegal drugs were made legal, too many people would abuse them doing damage to themselves and others.

    Frankly, if I believed that people would use drugs responsibly, I would support legalization. However, once they were made legal, you would see rampant abuse.

    It’s one thing to screw up your own life but most people have families and family members have to deal with the consequences of drug use.

    • TheCogitator

      So why is marijuana illegal? There is no documented evidence of marijuana killing anyone.

      Some people eat too many French fries, and have adverse health consequences. Should French fries be banned?

      Let adults consume what they wish.

      • Let me guess.
        You’re a user who wants to legitimize his little “hobby”, right?
        Pardon me while I roll my eyes…

        • TheCogitator

          You guessed wrong.

          It seems that you are unfamiliar with people who hold positions based on principle and not their own selfish interests.

          • If true, then you are an exception. The majority of those who push for legalization are those who stand to gain from it…ie the users.

          • TheCogitator

            And those who push for the drug war are often the people who profit from it, like the dealers, the cops, and the rest of the so called criminal “justice” system. Others clamoring for drug laws are the useful idiots of the aforementioned.

        • MikeofAges

          Drug legalization would allow some small number of addicts to live legally if they wished. But that’s about it. Honestly, I can’t imagine making stimulant drugs legally available. Heroin is not the terror drug it is made out to be. The problems are due to the fact that addicts will do anything to get the drug once they become addicted. But the drug itself does not promote or cause violent behavior. As long as an addict has a supply, that person will not cause any problems. Quite the opposite.

          You cannot say the same thing for stimulant drugs. The drugs themselves promote violent and aberrant behavior and active paranoia.

          • gemjunior

            Well maybe they would lose their appeal for people, especially those who try it because they want to look bad, or cool… look at cigarette smoking and how much high schoolers really scorn it when in my day every kid in HS smoked, probably from curiosity and the thrill of doing something they were told not to. In other words if marijuana or heroin were legalized, there’d be little danger that many of us would be running out to do heroin. I don’t honestly know the answer. There are excellent arguments for both sides but crashing the drug rings and cartels is a tempting one. I would not legalize them right now, with the gov’t we have and the population we have. Maybe in the 1940s and 1950s a mostly white populations could’ve handled that responsibility. Big difference now. I’m pessimistic about anything and could see every black and mestizo opening up shops in nice neighborhoods getting all these kids hooked. I would say do not legalize them.

        • IanJMacDonald

          Let me guess: your preference for argument ad hominem is a tacit admission that you have no facts and arguments to bolster your position.

      • Gereng

        Let’s suppose they did legalize certain narcotics. The Medical establishment would insist they have a role, as would big pharma. More than likely drugs would be dispensed on a doctor’s prescription.
        That means of course that certain rules would prevail. No drugs to pregnant and nursing mothers. No drugs to people under 18 or 21 yrs of age. Dosage would be limited to levels safely below the lethal dose. Naturally, there would be limits on the amount dispensed in any time frame. Other restrictions would be imposed by a crooked Congress paid off by the cartels.
        This would leave an enormous number of addicts unserved by a govmint controlled system that doled out legal drugs. Trust me on this…he street corner seller would till be in business as would the cartels… and drug related crime would remain about where it is at present.

        • MikeofAges

          Drug legalization would allow long-term opiate (heroin) addicts to live legally, if they wished. It would not end illegal drug trafficking at all. You might not notice the difference.

          • Gereng

            That is exactly my view. I also think the number of narcotized individuals on the roads and in the work place would increase ten fold as being in a drugged state would no longer be a criminal offense nor a reason for dismissal from a job as it would be a condition produced by a prescribed medication. The doctors and lawyers will LOVE legalized drugs. Meanwhile all those companies manufacturing will send away the remaining production lines, not wanting to deal with a legally zonked work force.

          • MikeofAges

            I don’t think people would be allowed to be under the influence of drugs in the workplace any more than they allowed to be under the influence of alcohol or, in the places where it has be legalized, marijuana. What legalization would accomplish is to allow long-term addicts who could not “kick” to live within the law if they wished. Not all would choose to live within the law, but some of those, if allowed prescription access would be able to work and maintain their life otherwise. Individuals who are addicted to opiates can manage their cravings and withdrawal symptoms by means other than injecting heroin. They can, for example, take other opiates orally, such as codeine or morphine. Nasty sounding to some, but if those persons can control their behavior otherwise, a better alternative to a life in and out of jail and rehab. A few cents a day for a pharmaceutical drug, or, ultimately, hundreds of thousands in public money.

            Methadone has been used for decades, but many suspect that it is damaging to the human body. Natural opiates, by contrast, are well tolerated.

            Keep in mind, however, that drug legalization will not end street drug use. Not every drug can be legalized, and few individuals will even be candidates for legal drug use.

      • sbuffalonative

        ’cause it’s a government conspiracy, man.

        Big pharma payoff politicians because pot is cure of AIDS and cancer and big phrama makes money treating people with expensive man-made drugs instead of a natural weed people could grow in their garden.

        Or,

        as I said, some people use drugs irresponsibly.

        I agree everyone should be able to eat all the french fries or smoke all the pot they want. Unfortunately, too many people over do it. Most people aren’t hermits and they have friends and family and they interact with strangers. Their actions affect those around them. Most parents, even those who smoked pot, see it as a dead end and don’t want their children to use it.

        Years ago, I knew a guy who smoked pot before he walked in the door to work. It never seemed to affect him in any way I could tell. But others can’t handle it. It affect their lives and the lives of the people around them.

        As for pot killing people. Breathing smoke isn’t what your lungs were designed to do. They stay healthier longer with clean air.

      • IanJMacDonald

        Bacon cheeseburgers kill more Americans than marijuana, heroin and cocaine combined.

    • Most of those older appetite suppressants like Fen Phen worked exactly like methamphetamines, which of course produced addicts.

  • RisingReich

    This reminds me of Fidel Castro unloading his jails onto banana boats bound for Miami, FL….except now no boats are needed.

    As in the movie Scarface, it will take an equally ‘ruthless’ power to defeat ‘Scarface’.

    Problem is, no one acceptable has auditioned for the part…yet.

  • Holder can’t really do anything because judges set sentences according to Federal Sentencing Guidelines. He certainly can’t do anything about state sentences. Laws against hard drugs aren’t just federal; they’re also state.

  • Dave4088

    I’m not opposed for lighter sentencing for non-violent drug offenders, but I am opposed to it if it is being done to the exclusive benefit of blacks. And just where does Mr. My People derive the power to unilaterally lower sentencing requirements?

    I almost forgot that Obama/Holder refuse to enforce laws they don’t like or circumvent the Constitution and act administratively to further the black power agenda.

    • IstvanIN

      King Farouk and Little Kim of N.K. don’t wield the absolute power these two clowns Obama and Holder) do.

    • Nathanwartooth

      I wouldn’t be surprised if they changed the law so that Blacks and Whites are charged differently! I mean they have gotten around the equal protection of the law so many times that it doesn’t matter anymore.

      Well the one drug we all know he would never touch is meth. If he did lower the charges for it, I would crap my pants.

  • So you are fool as well as a troll.
    No suprise there.

    • Thor Bonham

      No need to call him names or anything .. We read his post, we get the point..

    • Gereng

      To whom do you refer?

  • George

    Mandatory sentences ‘breed disrespect for the system’.
    Really, Mr. Holder?
    People understand the basic concept of minimum sentences. They support them. This is why, when someone commits murder and is out of prison in three years, they are upset. This is why when a child molester is given a six month suspended sentence, they are upset.
    Society has basic rules of accepted behaviour. Don’t hurt other people, don’t steal their stuff. Don’t do things (such as driving drunk or taking narcotics) that make you a menace to others.
    Those who violate these rules are subject to incarceration. Naturally, more serious offences carry greater penalties.
    The ‘disabling’ effect they have are on the criminal underclass.
    The longer a felon is behind bars, the less time he has available over the course of his lifetime to commit other crimes. How, exactly, is this counter-productive?
    Lastly, until Amendments 13-through-15 are repealed, prosecution and incarceration are, indeed, the best way to make society safer. This is why the violent crime rate has decreased in lock-step with the increase in the incarceration rate.
    Is Mr. Holder completely ignorant of reality, or is he attempting his largest act of deception yet? You decide.

  • The reason for the disparity in sentencing between blacks and other racial groups is quite simple and it’s related to the fact that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than do other groups: prior criminal history.
    When you are found guilty of a crime and go before a judge for sentencing, one of the things he looks at is the prior criminal history of the person being sentenced. This includes arrests that did not result in a conviction or prosecution as well as actual past convictions(those show up on your NCIC criminal history as well as your convictions). So yes, if you go before a judge and your criminal history shows 15 lifetime arrests and 5 prior convictions (which are actually very low numbers for a typical criminal in my experience) you are far more likely to recieve a harsher sentence than someone who has a much “cleaner” criminal history.
    so it’s not some “eviiiil raaaacist” plot by the criminal justice system to keep blacks in prision. it’s a self inflicted thing. You get arrested and/or convicted alot, you are far more likely to get the book thrown at you the next time around.
    It really is that simple.

    • Sometimes, the sentence is determined via a plea deal, and is almost out of the hands of the judge. Judges can reject plea deals, but they rarely do.

  • Sick of it

    This story left out the important point that Holder was talking about letting drug DEALERS out of prison. I’d be willing to bet the dealers, not users, will benefit the most from Holder’s new program. One could argue we have too many in prison for mere drug possession, but it is foolish to argue that the dealers be given a slap on the wrist. Again, criminals supporting criminals.

  • Sick of it

    Since the vast majority of Americans have consistently opposed legalization, perhaps this is simply something un-American and more fitting to modern ruins like other continents (including the wreck of the once proud Netherlands).

  • The cartels would probably find another business.

    While I think full legalization would mean that some people no longer use drugs, per the forbidden fruit syndrome, what would probably happen is that more people would use them.

    Liberals would just come up with another canard to explain minority incarceration. Because that’s what liberals (and in fact, many “conservatives”) do, dream up excuses.

    • Thor Bonham

      My ideal world requires a humanity that has a median IQ of 140 or so ..
      It’s a big country for all eight of you, no ?

      • gemjunior

        Yes, we are pretty lonely up here. 😀

  • OhWow

    I’ll be honest…I used to be one of those people who laughed and called people nuts when they said Holder was a racist who only supports black interests. But now it’s obvious.

  • Evette Coutier

    When is this hemorrhoidal rectum going to stand up for innocent victims like the white kid who was assaulted in the school bus instead of standing up for criminals. Every I count my blessings that I am not black.

  • negrolocaust

    blacks are the lowest most violent unproductive least intelligent lowlife group of people and everybody knows it including them. every race is sick of their violence and crime. they get worse and more stupid every day now they walk around with their pants below their stinking behinds. disgusting lower than any animal. they are all trayvon ie thug criminals casing houses on drugs. their quote language is lazy incoherent mumbling idiocy called ebonics. i just wish they were all dead because they disgust me and they are the biggest problem to all good people on this planet. they are ugly with nasty greasy black skin which is why they are envious of all other people. look at opera fat disgusting even her billion dollars cant buy her way out of her nasty black pig face.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    “Adults should be free to consume any substance they desire.”

    Except for Mr. Hyde juice. That could lead to problems like face eating zombies.

    How bout Jenkum, lol?

    • gemjunior

      I want to force-feed Jenkum to every violent incarcerated black man via the Human Centipede Anti-Recidivism Program. They can enjoy their own brand of Negro Jenkum Fo’ty. Maybe that would pacify this most incorrigible of citizens…. LOL 😀

  • JohnEngelman

    ‘One deeply troubling report, released in February, indicates that–in recent years–black male offenders have received sentences nearly 20 percent longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar crimes. This isn’t just unacceptable–it is shameful.’

    – David Martosko, Daily Mail (London), August 12, 2013

    Blacks have a rate of violent crime that is nearly eight times the white rate. That is what is shameful.

  • Spartacus

    “One deeply troubling report, released in February, indicates that–in
    recent years–black male offenders have received sentences nearly 20
    percent longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar
    crimes. This isn’t just unacceptable–it is shameful.”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    Did the report state how many of the dark-skins had prior convictions, compared to the white ones? Of course it didn’t, that would be racist…

  • 48224

    Here’s an idea on how to reduce the prison population. Offer unproductive, low IQ men and women cash if they get fixed so that they cannot have children. Our grand children will thank us.

    • MikeofAges

      You can do that privately. Planned Parenthood already is. Then again, Planned Parenthood has maintained its station as a cog in good standing within the Popular Front machine. You try it, and see what kind of accusations you get hit with. Or what things worse than mere accusations come your way.

      One thing that won’t happen. The government won’t do it for you, not anything more or different than it is doing now. Planned Parenthood provides services largely as a contractor to state and local governments. Kind of like the Chamber of Commerce in that way.

  • Greg S

    So let me get this right.
    We are not prosecuting-
    1. ILLEGAL immigrants
    2. BLACK gangbangers
    I guess that just leaves people like me that WORK, VOTE, PAY TAXES, LAW ABIDING,
    old, white, southern, Christian folk.
    Maybe it is time for people like me to raise a little hell.

  • Thor Bonham

    ‘One deeply troubling report, released in February, indicates that–in
    recent years–black male offenders have received sentences nearly 20
    percent longer than those imposed on white males convicted of similar
    crimes. This isn’t just unacceptable–it is shameful..

    I’m sure it has nothing to do with the 4 other felonies the black criminal has committed or, the repeat offenders of the same crime .. Nope,it’s just a racist issue as usual.. Pppffftt !!
    Whites are evil, they are all out to get the darkies ..

    Hey white people, are you at all getting sick and tired of this crap yet ?

  • Yale2001

    Holder is a vile criminal that has been given a position of power. He rather black criminals go free than protect Americans. If you think America stands a chance with people like him in office, you should be wearing a helmet.

  • MikeofAges

    And what do you do about the pathologically manipulative behavior of stimulant drug (amphetamine and cocaine) users, especially in the workplace? Are normal (sober and drug-abstinent) people supposed to put up with it? Potheads and alkies are bad enough. Even cigarette addicts are a little narcissistic sometimes.

    This is a question that requires an answer. It’s not theoretical to me, by the way.

  • Jim Henry

    I participated in the Good News Jail and Prison Ministry for 7 years. The program brings the Gospell to incarcerated inmates. The vast majority of the inmates at the detention center I visited were white male heroin addicts in their mid 20’s. Most of these were in for non-violent crimes. Many were homeless because they families wanted nothing to do with them. When they serve their time, the first thing they do is look for more heroin. They cannot find jobs because of their criminal record. I asked one 25 year old inmate where he was going to stay after his 18 month incarceration. He stated, depending upon the weather, he will either stay in the cold weather shelter or pitch his tent down by the railroad tracks. How long before he ends up back in jail?

    Hey guys, this is more of a medical issue than a criminal one. We need to show some compassion for these folks. Why? Because they will living in our communities, driving their ovehicles next to our vehicles on the freeways, etc.

    What ever happened to the so-called War On Drugs?

    • “How long before he ends up back in jail?”

      Or dead of hypothermia after a night in freezing weather.

  • gemjunior

    Ewww gross….

  • Non sequitur.

  • cablegirls

    The “deeply troubling report” is biased towards blacks — it purposefully does not consider prior convictions when comparing sentences. On average, blacks have more priors than whites.

  • Cannot Tell

    I recently finished reading one of Harold Covington’s books, The Hill of the Ravens. The book is a fictional work about 40 million whites who live in an ethno-state in the Northwestern region of what used to be the United States. One of the reasons that whites seceded is because they faced an incredible amount of persecution by non-whites. While I was reading the book I was thinking that heterosexual white males could never be completely barred from entering colleges. I also thought that white children being kidnapped from their parents was extreme and that harsher treatment of whites from the criminal justice system was extreme. But now that I’m reading this article I fear that the situation depicted in that fictional novel may someday become a reality.

  • newscomments70

    Singapore doesn’t have much a problem with drugs nor violent crimes. They only execute about 15 people per year. Execution is a wonderful deterrent, and far fewer people die. I don’t think that cities full of drugie zombies would work…visit Portland, OR to see what I mean.

  • serious123

    I will give Holder credit on this one. I think we could make marijuana legal without any big isuues, but as for heroin that is different. Won’t heroin addicts eventually increase intake until they have to steal to support their habit or enter other illegal activites? If so isn’t it better to get them off the streets earlier rather than later. Anybody seen any studies?

  • TheCogitator

    This study does not seem to establish a causal relationship between marijuana and accidents. People who drive sports cars may be in more accidents, but that does not mean that sports cars cause accidents. I would take this study with a grain of salt. I wonder who funded it?