Attorney General Eric Holder plans to reduce the incarceration rate

August 12, 2013

Monday, August 12, 2013

Good morning to all our friends:

As I pointed out in my Friday post, Incarceration is the new slavery, we imprison more people than any other nation on the planet.

The numbers are mindboggling. In 1980, we incarcerated 220 people per 100,000. Over the next 30 years, that rate more than tripled such that by 2010, we incarcerated 716 people per 100,000. Among major countries, Russia is a distant second place at 484 people per 100,000. The incarceration rate for countries in the developed world averages around 100 per 100,000 with some countries incarcerating people at substantially lower rates.

The Obama administration is planning to reduce the incarceration rate.

In a speech today in San Francisco before the American Bar Association, Attorney General Eric Holder is going to announce a plan to accomplish that goal.

Reuters has the story:

“I have mandated a modification of the Justice Department’s charging policies so that certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who have no ties to large-scale organizations, gangs, or cartels, will no longer be charged with offenses that impose draconian mandatory minimum sentences,” Holder is expected to say, according to excerpts of his prepared remarks provided by the Justice Department.

The plan also will include provisions for the early release of “inmates facing extraordinary or compelling circumstances – and who pose no threat to the public.”

Remains to be seen how effective this plan will be in a nation where providing the appearance of a functioning government appears to be more important than getting anything done.

Turning to another topic, we are waiting to see whether the Department of Justice will decide to prosecute George Zimmerman. Somehow I missed this article by William Yeomans, titled Can federal charges be brought against Zimmerman?

I think Yeomans does a good job explaining the law and the procedure for deciding whether to prosecute. He served as Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee and as a Justice Department official. He is a fellow in law and government at American University College of Law in Washington D.C.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

We thank everyone for their donations. Although the financial situation has improved, we remain uncomfortably close to the brink. If you can afford to and have not already done so, please take a few minutes to make a donation.

Producing articles every day and maintaining this blog requires substantial time and effort.

Fred


Obama’s Vile Assassination Doctrine

March 7, 2012

President Obama’s assassination doctrine is a blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment and an insult to everyone who believes in due process of law, the rule of law, and the Constitution. No one is above the law, especially the President. That he would think and proclaim otherwise, says volumes about his arrogance and ignorance.

Attorney General Eric Holder delivered a speech at the Northwestern University School of Law purporting to justify the assassination doctrine as an acceptable form of non-judicial process that has never been reviewed, much less approved, by a court of law. Worse, the administration refuses to share and discuss the legal memorandum upon which Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama rely in claiming the assassination power.

As with everything else in this secretive administration, we are supposed to shut-up and trust them. I refuse to do so.

Support for the death penalty in this country has declined substantially due to the hundreds of innocent people wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. Why would anyone think that the President should be trusted to get it right when he targets someone for assassination, if our criminal justice system and its vaunted trial by jury so often gets it wrong? What is to stop a president from targeting a political rival or a Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. for assassination?

Nothing. The person is assassinated and we the people are never provided with an explanation. Absent a whistleblower, and we all know how much this president loves and welcomes whistleblowers, we would never know the president ordered the hit, much less why. Indeed, one might reasonably suppose that he or she would be next, if they asked too many questions.

I am truly disgusted and alarmed beyond words by this development. Under no circumstances will I vote for Barack Obama or any other candidate who supports his assassination doctrine.


%d bloggers like this: