Too many in prison for far too long: US attorney

WASHINGTON: -- Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday announced changes in federal drug prosecution intended to reduce prison populations, save money and remove built-in bias against poor minority defendants.

Holder declared the current system "broken" and "far from sustainable," in a speech in San Francisco to the American Bar Association.

Holder cited the soaring prison population, which since 1980 has increased 800 per cent while US population increased only by about one-third.

He emphasized studies such as one that showed black male offenders receive sentences nearly 20 per cent longer than white males convicted of similar crimes.

"This isn’t just unacceptable - it is shameful," Holder said.


-- The Nation 2013-08-13

I agree, some sentences are racially unfair, and biased against the poorer population.

they lost war on drugs, long time ago

this isn't way to prevent human beings of taking drugs.

it goes thru education and future in "system"

Edited August 13, 201312 yr by dahinni

It's a scandalous waste of human lives, a scandalous waste of money, and a scandalous reflection upon the US Justice system.

Read this and weep, this guy was convicted of selling 4 bottles of prescribed medicine, a transaction totaling $1200.00, and got 25 years in jail for it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21939453

I'm in the legalize drugs camp, and I'm also in the rehabilitation camp. A few months in jail would have given the guy a sufficient shock. I applaud this initiative by the US government.

Yes, it's a horrible situation, and one that Americans should be very ashamed of. On the other hand it's a positive development to have a progressive president with an Attorney General who realizes how wrong it is. Now some ACTION to fix it, please!

Edited August 13, 201312 yr by Jingthing

It's a scandalous waste of human lives, a scandalous waste of money, and a scandalous reflection upon the US Justice system.

Read this and weep, this guy was convicted of selling 4 bottles of prescribed medicine, a transaction totaling $1200.00, and got 25 years in jail for it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21939453

I'm in the legalize drugs camp, and I'm also in the rehabilitation camp. A few months in jail would have given the guy a sufficient shock. I applaud this initiative by the US government.

You are right, a shocking article!

My work had me arrest many people, the arrests of these same individuals became progressively harder and more dangerous as they were educated in crimes while in prison. I retired and many of them are still in and out of the justice system.

prison = big business in private hands

they should do as in thailand: 50 in a cell, water and some rotten rice and fishheads

and let the prisoners pay if they want more, or force labour to pay for the burden they cost the taxpayers

weed should be legal for personal use...

The US has long held this peculiar belief that putting people (who can't afford expensive attorneys) in prison solves all manner of problems. The unfortunate truth is that it creates far greater, and far more complex problems than it solves. When your country has the world's highest percentage of it's population behind bars, it suggests you're doing a number of fundamental things badly. Hopefully this is finally sinking in.

Edited August 13, 201312 yr by marell

There is a dirty corruption in the U.S. prison system. They usually locate the prisons in one horse towns without any other industry, the guard jobs pay well, they have strong prison guard unions, if they cut down on the prison population these towns would dry up from the job losses. It's insane. The prisoners are a profit center commodity. They also use them for a kind of slave labor. There are strong forces to keep the prison population very high, never mind the human tragedy to the prisoners and their families that really shouldn't be there.

Sure SOME people should be in prison. But clearly a small fraction of the numbers that actually are.

Edited August 13, 201312 yr by Jingthing

The USA has 4.5% of the worlds population...... it also has 25% of the worlds prisoners. These astounding figures and a lot more are the bases of the Documentary that Brad Pitt Funded "The House I live In"

http://www. ----- thehouseilivein.org/ It has caused such a storm in America and in no small part contributed to this move to change the laws, that do not allow a Judge to determine what a proper sentence should be.

I would urge everyone to try to view it.

"In the past 40 years, the War on Drugs has accounted for 45 million arrests, made America the world's largest jailer, and destroyed impoverished communities at home and abroad.

The war on drugs has never been about drugs IMDB.com

When you look at those figures in this Doco and then at the tiny percentage of those 45 Million who have actually been the dealers, not the Mules and users--- you will know why we lost the war on drugs.

Edited August 13, 201312 yr by oxo1947

I read that some municipalities have opened the prisons to private companies with a guaranteed occupancy rate of 90%. Any short fall is to be made up by the municipality. Horrible.

Yes, it's a horrible situation, and one that Americans should be very ashamed of. On the other hand it's a positive development to have a progressive president with an Attorney General who realizes how wrong it is. Now some ACTION to fix it, please!

That will happen the same time the U.S. brings home all of its combatants from other countries. The drug war will go on for the same reason the U.S. continues to wage wars throughout the world: too many so-called respectable people are making too much money from it.

At least in the US they are realizing that putting people in prison for drugs doesn't work. In Canada the present Prime Minister is going the opposite way and putting more people in prisson for drugs.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 6 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The war on drugs is a war on the people. It is about time.

I have nothing but contempt for Eric Holder, but he is right about this.

I agree, some sentences are racially unfair, and biased against the poorer population.

The very first reply to the topic and you have to play the race card. How quaint.

I do not agree with mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders, but just where do you come off saying that the laws are racially biased? The law is the law and if you are caught selling crack on the corner, then you are charged with the crime. The law is color blind. Or is you problem with the fact that most drug offenders in jail today in the US are black? If that's the case, then your assertion is baseless.

Land of the free?

I have nothing but contempt for Eric Holder, but he is right about this.

This is the only thing I agree with that has come out of the DOJ since 2008.

The irony is that the DOJ is still going after the medical marijuana dispensaries in every state where it has become legal. So on one hand, Holder is now saying that they won't prosecute drug offenders while still going after the legally licensed suppliers. Madness if you ask me.

I agree, some sentences are racially unfair, and biased against the poorer population.

The very first reply to the topic and you have to play the race card. How quaint.

I do not agree with mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders, but just where do you come off saying that the laws are racially biased? The law is the law and if you are caught selling crack on the corner, then you are charged with the crime. The law is color blind. Or is you problem with the fact that most drug offenders in jail today in the US are black? If that's the case, then your assertion is baseless.

One of the issues with some drug laws, which appeared to be aimed at the African-American community, was the disparity in sentencing for those caught with cocaine vs those caught with crack. In the 80's the ratio was like 1 gram of crack was equal to 100 grams of cocaine with regards to allocated jail time. This was changed in 2011(?) to a ratio of 1 to 18.

That 1 to 100 ratio made people sit back and say... this is essentially cocaine so why the huge difference. Some felt that because crack was used mainly in black areas and cocaine was not, it was confirmation of a racially biased law with 1 gram of something being given the same rate of something 100 times bigger.

Many years ago, I worked in a residential care facility (not for prisoners, however). The cost was based on the actual cost of housing the residents, the rate could be adjusted. If a facility was at full occupancy, the cost per resident is lower. If the occupancy is low, then the cost per resident increased. The cost was also based on the services provided, such as counseling, education etc., etc..

I don't know how the prisons are funded, but they will not go broke with lower occupancy.

One of the issues with some drug laws, which appeared to be aimed at the African-American community, was the disparity in sentencing for those caught with cocaine vs those caught with crack.

Crack is supposed to be WAY more addictive than cocaine as heroin is much more addictive than opium. That is the main reason for stiffer penalties.

Edited August 13, 201312 yr by Ulysses G.

I agree, some sentences are racially unfair, and biased against the poorer population.

The very first reply to the topic and you have to play the race card. How quaint.

I do not agree with mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenders, but just where do you come off saying that the laws are racially biased? The law is the law and if you are caught selling crack on the corner, then you are charged with the crime. The law is color blind. Or is you problem with the fact that most drug offenders in jail today in the US are black? If that's the case, then your assertion is baseless.

Crack is a poor man's way of consuming cocaine.

If penalties for crack were the same as penalties for cocaine, you'd have a valid point. But crack carries much stiffer penalties than cocaine. Very biased against the poor who can't afford cocaine. Then we get into the demographics that make up "the poor", and racism rears its ugly head.

As to Ulysses G' theory that the reason for the harsher penalty is that crack is way more addictive, a cynical person would say the penalties are harsher because they snag the right people.

Edited August 13, 201312 yr by impulse

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed. It is generally accepted, but not written into law, that quoting the first two or three sentences of an article and giving a link to the source is considered “fair use” and not a violation of copyright.

This is a disturbing trend where American Black leaders see a racist behind every tree.

And this is coming from a guy who lied under oath to Congress concerning Fast & Furious.

Crack is a poor man's way of consuming cocaine.

It is also much more powerful and addictive.

Crack, the most potent form in which cocaine appears, is also the riskiest. It is between 75% and 100% pure, far stronger and more potent than regular cocaine.

Smoking crack allows it to reach the brain more quickly and thus brings an intense and immediatebut very short-livedhigh that lasts about fifteen minutes. And because addiction can develop even more rapidly if the substance is smoked rather than snorted (taken in through the nose), an abuser can become addicted after his or her first time trying crack. http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/crackcocaine.html

The new policy adjustment is a breath of fresh air. Too bad it came too late for the hundreds of thousands of prisoners (most of whom are black or hispanic). It's not retroactively applied to cruel sentences handed out prior.

The AG's announcement is only that - it's not law-making - that's mostly up to the states. Many states have already been putting together more fair-minded sentencing laws re; small-time drug use or dealing small amounts - particularly where there's no other crime involved. Even that most arch-conservative spokesman of years ago, William F. Buckley, was against the 'war on drugs' - except where peddling to children was involved.

Tennessee has been relaxing its drug laws, and saved over $8 million last year (its first year doing so). When asked about 'recidivism' the top gov't attorney there said there's practically none at all in response to the less draconian sentencing.

Now if Thailand and other Asian countries could smell the coffee, and ease up from their ridiculously harsh and unfair drug laws....

Crack is a poor man's way of consuming cocaine.

It is also much more powerful and addictive.

Crack, the most potent form in which cocaine appears, is also the riskiest. It is between 75% and 100% pure, far stronger and more potent than regular cocaine.

Smoking crack allows it to reach the brain more quickly and thus brings an intense and immediatebut very short-livedhigh that lasts about fifteen minutes. And because addiction can develop even more rapidly if the substance is smoked rather than snorted (taken in through the nose), an abuser can become addicted after his or her first time trying crack. http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/crackcocaine.html

I'm not advocating crack, but let's do some comparisons.....

Is it more addictive than coffee, ciggs, sugar? I've heard coffee is more addictive than cocaine. I've tried both, and had more trouble kicking coffee (and ciggs), than in quitting coke.

Crack is less harmful, certainly in terms of overall damage to society, than liquor and beer. At least one person was murdered last year by a Thai man who was desperate for beer money. How many were killed by crack addicts? A young Thai woman got her armed hacked off by a drunk man. How many Thais have gotten butchered by crack heads?

over to you......

Edited August 13, 201312 yr by boomerangutang

I think we can probably dispense with comparisons of addictive qualities. At one point a study cited that nicotine was (at that time) the most addictive substance. It's probably not the most dangerous, however.

The laws about crack and cocaine, at the time they were written were pretty much discriminatory. People that could afford cocaine, could also afford lawyers, cocaine use was common among the professionals and the children of professionals. Crack was used by poor people, whose only legal representation was the public defender. They had little family support and probably the only person who had anything to say about them was their welfare caseworker.

You can rest assured that there were no medical people or scientists involved in a discussion of the addictive qualities of the substances when the laws were written. Any arguments were made after the fact.

I read that some municipalities have opened the prisons to private companies with a guaranteed occupancy rate of 90%. Any short fall is to be made up by the municipality. Horrible.

Crime pays. 4% dividend.