Obama Goes Soft On Crime
In 2008, Californians voted on Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, which proposed that the state severely reduce criminal consequences for nonviolent drug offenses, the court's authority to incarcerate violators of probation or parole be limited, parole for most drug offenses be shortened, and funding for rehabilitation programs be increased. Proponents of the proposition maintained that it would be a cost-cutting measure that would save the state an estimated $2.5 billion dollars and argued that it would free up some much needed space in our overcrowded prisons.
Prop 5 ultimately failed at the polls by an overwhelming margin of nearly 20 percent, with 59.7% of voters rejecting the measure. Nevertheless, the unpopular measure seems to have served as the prototype for the Obama administration's new outlook on crime. Josh Gerstein at Politico reports:
The Obama White House has taken the first steps in decades to move away from a strict lock-‘em-up mentality on crime – easing sentences for crack cocaine possession, launching a top-to-bottom review of sentencing policies and even sounding open to reviewing guidelines that call for lengthy prison terms for people convicted of child pornography offenses.
The moves – still tentative, to be sure — suggest that President Barack Obama’s aides are betting that the issue has lost some of its punch with voters more worried about terrorism and recession. In one measure of the new political climate surrounding the issue, the Obama administration actually felt free to boast that the new crack-sentencing bill would go easier on some drug criminals.
“The Fair Sentencing Act marks the first time in 40 years that Congress has reduced a mandatory minimum sentence,” said White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, who billed the new legislation as “monumental.”
Does anyone else find this move anything short of baffling? With election season now upon us, one would think that the last thing Democrats would want to do is propagate the perception (or reality?) that they're the party that's soft on crime.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Obama Goes Soft On Crime
If you're a community organizer from South Chicago's gangland, I think it's called pandering to the base.
Sep '10
Re: Obama Goes Soft On Crime
If there are roughly 2,000,000 people incarcerated in the US at any given time, and 31,000 (give or take) of those are in the California penal system for drug related crimes, you're looking at the foundation of a large Democratic voting block.
Al Franken is one of the most recent beneficiaries of voting felons, although they did so illegally.
Jul '10
Re: Obama Goes Soft On Crime
Personally, I loathe the "War on Drugs".
How is it that a police-state initiative begun by Richard Nixon is immune to thoughtful reconsideration?
Consider this: if you're stopped by police and they find you in possession of a significant amount of cash, they can confiscate the cash under the assumption that it is the proceeds of drug trade - and confiscate your vehicle - and then you have to prove the cash came from legitimate sources before they'll give the cash and the vehicle back. Forget about the quaint concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
Or perhaps some police informant, hoping for a lightened sentence, tells the cops your next-door neigbor's son is a drug dealer. But he gives them the wrong address. Bam! - a SWAT team crashes through your door, guns drawn, with no warning.
And, hey, do you enjoy having to fill out forms at CVS when you buy Sudafed and then wield a chain-saw to extract your caplets from the packaging?
Meanwhile, an entire underclass of mostly young, mostly black drug offenders languishes, seething, on the margins of society, branded with criminal records that render them unemployable.
End the stupid, statist drug war.
Edited on Sep 11, 2010 at 8:06pmSep '10
Re: Obama Goes Soft On Crime
Bullseye, Bret. It really is that simple.
May '10
Re: Obama Goes Soft On Crime
Sadly I share Bret's cynicism about this particular initiative.
But I also share Kenneth's libertarian impulses to blast the failures of the current system. Voters love to vote for throwing more and more people in prison where they rot and fester at tremendous taxpayer expense.
If the left is unable to accept the insidious futility of the Great Society initiatives, then the right has the same blind spot with its approach to incarceration.This is not to say that I want to send all offenders to mandatory group counseling and art therapy, but neither do I think that California's ballot initiative process is an intelligent way to deal with anything, much less crime deterrence and rehabilitation.
And yes, I am groovy enough to believe rehabilitation should be the goal. There has to be a way to save some of the people that get pushed into the prison system. Because right now it amounts to an all-expense paid trip to Felony University.
Maybe we should consider public caning for non-violent offenses -- you know like failing to sort your recycling properly -- but to imply that the current policy is working is nonsense.
May '10
Re: Obama Goes Soft On Crime
I love it when the NYT publishes stories to the effect "Why are we locking up so many people when the crime rate has fallen?" Nossir, no cause-and-effect is possible there. People really buy more when the price goes up.
Kenneth, don't confuse RICO government overreach (I agree that the confiscation elements are appalling and that special task forces develop bad habits; cops can be like that- just read Radley Balko) with a purported "cure" of abandoning all law enforcement. Spend more time around people going through rehab for the third time and their descriptions of how they progressed to that sad state before deciding to abandon all standards.
I agree that the "drug war" is overdone, but, like most people, I can't see no enforcement at all. I've known too many people who acknowledge being heartbreaking examples. Speed bumps aren't preventatives, but zero speed bumps aren't the answer either.
Jul '10
Re: Obama Goes Soft On Crime
Duane Oyen:
I agree that the "drug war" is overdone, but, like most people, I can't see no enforcement at all. I've known too many people who acknowledge being heartbreaking examples. Speed bumps aren't preventatives, but zero speed bumps aren't the answer either. · Sep 11 at 9:37pm
Epidemiological studies consistently suggest that somewhere between five and ten percent of the population are going to do drugs no matter whether they're illegal or legal and regulated.
All the War on Drugs has accomplished is to create a wildly-profitable black market, ruled by violence and corruption, while increasing the size of the state and encouraging law enforcement agencies to engage in police-state tactics.
Not to mention, hastening the descent of Mexico to failed-state status.
Truth is, the most destructive drug of all is alcohol, but we learned how futile it is to ban that. Time to face facts with other mood-altering substances, as well.
Edited on Sep 12, 2010 at 7:25amJul '10
Re: Obama Goes Soft On Crime
Trace Urdan: Sadly I share Bret's cynicism about this particular initiative.
But I also share Kenneth's libertarian impulses to blast the failures of the current system. Voters love to vote for throwing more and more people in prison where they rot and fester at tremendous taxpayer expense.
Trace, I'm not coming at this from a Libertarian perspective.
To me, it's pragmatic: the War on Drugs has too many unacceptable costs. It's a complete failure.
May '10
Re: Obama Goes Soft On Crime
Kenneth Trace, I'm not coming at this from a Libertarian perspective.
To me, it's pragmatic: the War on Drugs has too many unacceptable costs. It's a complete failure. · Sep 11 at 9:53pm
Apologies -- I shouldn't have characterized your response like that. My sense of failure extends beyond the war on drugs, though that seems like an effective place to start.
Jul '10
Re: Obama Goes Soft On Crime
Trace Urdan
Kenneth Trace, I'm not coming at this from a Libertarian perspective.
To me, it's pragmatic: the War on Drugs has too many unacceptable costs. It's a complete failure. · Sep 11 at 9:53pm
Apologies -- I shouldn't have characterized your response like that. My sense of failure extends beyond the war on drugs, though that seems like an effective place to start. · Sep 11 at 10:00pm
No apology necessary. I can totally understand how you might have thought it to be my Libertarian impulse.
But you don't need to be libertarian to see failure when it's so clearly before your eyes.
Jul '10
Re: Obama Goes Soft On Crime
Sigh. The whole point of probation and parole is that you can be re-incarcerated if you violate it. The more you foreclose that possibility, the less incentive parolees have to stay on the straight and narrow. As it is, less than half of parolees nationwide finish their paroles without re-offending. And that figure doesn't include the ones who don't get caught or who get caught but don't get their parole revoked.