It's been largely non-violent drug offenders who were sentenced with an excessive mandatory minimum. So I seriously doubt some poor black guy who wasn't able to afford a criminal defense attorney 16 years ago when they were charge with distribution of 5gm cocaine is going to be able to pull any string when he gets out.
Last edited by WalterLSU; December 21st, 2016 at 09:00 PM.
I really like the way they "sell" it as non-violent .... a non-violent drug dealer petals a product that "kills" - overdose, altercations, robbery, etc by the user. Many of these non-violent criminals actually are violence producers - enablers. I also see where some had "gun" charges along with the drugs -- and we need more gun laws????
However, I probably do agree with the statement that there are some who were stupid enough to get caught under some 3 strikes law receiving long term stays at our expense - but they should have known the consequences.
Last edited by captain-03; December 22nd, 2016 at 12:10 AM.
The same could be said about alcohol. It kills, its very likely most people here know someone whos died for alcohol, or a drunk driver. Alcohol certainly causes violence as well, to to tigerland or Jefferson's street, and you'll see plenty of fights, and on occasions hear about a shooting in these areas. But you dont see people wanting to prohibit alcohol, because when it was prohibited, there were additional crimes that facilitated the manufacturing, distribution, and market protection of criminals business.
If you think it's a substance which cause problems then surely your advocating for prohibited alcohol.
So you're implying its purely humanitarian motivated, then why do they wait til the last week of office to commute the majority of sentences?
Well he has released or commuted a lot over the course of his time in office... But they wait til the last weeks or days because there is a political cost to doing so. At the end, his time is up, so the consequences are rather low. I don't have a big problem releasing or reducing time for weed or coke dealers who (he believes) got boned too hard by mandatory minimums. But, when he prattles on about 'doing something about gun violence', pushes gun laws or strategies that only affect law-abiding citizens, and then turns around and releases or reduces sentences for actual criminals charged with gun crimes... It seems like he doesn't really care about gun crimes, he's just trying to screw us over. What else am I supposed to deduce, here?