US to consider clemency requests from thousands of prisoners

[sirineou]

Because they did not have to, White collar criminals can afford to purchase clemency, or should I say impunity, in the open market.

Nope they are in jail also. So funny how you guys are too ignorant to follow.

OK so how many of the fat cats that almost wreaked the worlds economy went to jail?

[CWMcMurray]

People need to know "retired" in the US means 'forced' to retire if to keep their pensions.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Only in a very small number of cases

If you think this is just one crazy retired cop...

Check out the below video.. LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) is a very large organization of not only retired cops but also has members that are still active duty, as well as lawyers, judges, politicians, even former drug czar....

http://www.leap.cc

It has also made international links with various NGOs and has even spoken and submitted petition to UN to amend international drug treaties and will be presenting at UN conference later this year

You can find link to their 44 page amendment proposal to the UN below

http://www.leap.cc/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/LEAP_UN_Treaty_Amendment_2.26.1421-1.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited April 27, 2014 by CWMcMurray

[seedy]

OK so how many of the fat cats that almost wreaked the worlds economy went to jail?

Not many. And none of the major players.

Most people in jail in the US are people of color. Funny how this is the same group of people who are at a great disadvantage with respect to access to health care, jobs, education, etc.

Looking at the prison population demographic, it is not far off the mark to call it 'Incarceration Genocide' against minority populations in that country.

Gotta love how so-called educated people call others who have differing opinions 'dumb' and 'ignorant'

Edited April 27, 2014 by seedy

[hawker9000]

The US is the country with the highest rate of incarceration and this is a plan to review cases of non-violent offenders for clemency and already there are people predicting the end of civilization as we know it.

There will be mass lawlessness and we should impeach holder

All this and nothing, not one case. has been reviewed and not one person released from prison.

Lol. As if these criminals never received a trial (which includes a sentencing phase in which mitigating factors and criminal history (or lack thereof) are reviewed and considered) in the first place...

I'm sure police depts around the country are just thrilled to death about the prospect of all these convicts being dumped back onto the streets. Holder always was a miserable and very partisan choice for AG. I'm equally sure there'll be a few more thrills & spills out of the DOJ between now and Feb 2017. Keep your whoopy cushions handy.

Perhaps where you come from , you have a perfect legal system, where the only consideration is a just outcome.

Unfortunately in the world I live in , Politics, and access to proper representation has as much consideration as justice.

Why does Obama and Holder not propose clemency for white collar securities guys guilty of insider trading. That non violent. Most are first offenders as you cannot get a Series 7 or a Series 66 with a criminal background. These guys, unlike a lot of the crack heads, actual have degrees and are potentially employable. Oh wait, that's a bunch of white guys.

Lets just call it what it is.

RE: Perfect legal system

My first year out of law school. I am clerking for a Judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals. After argument and chambers, the judges take a preliminary vote and assign case for writing the opinion. I broke the cardinal rule as a clerk and spoke. I said something was not just. Legally it made sense. Philosophically, it did not.

One of the smartest Appellate judges I ever met looked at me and said, "son, when you walked in and out that law school every day, what did it say? Did it say school of law or school of justice?"

Perhaps the wisest words ever spoken to me. I don't expect anyone will get it thought, but it is true.

I would've thought that as a lawyer or judge, the first lesson you would've learned is that your duty is to the democratically generated law rather than your own individually determined concept of "justice". How utterly arrogant for an officer of any court to think his opinions supersede the law. Yet, it IS precisely this abuse of power and discretion that lies behind public disdain for the current judicial system.

Edited April 27, 2014 by hawker9000

[Credo]

I would've thought that as a lawyer or judge, the first lesson you would've learned is that your duty is to the democratically generated law rather than your own individually determined concept of "justice". How utterly arrogant for an officer of any court to think his opinions supersede the law. Yet, it IS precisely this abuse of power and discretion that lies behind public disdain for the current judicial system.

I don't know that there is public disdain of the current judicial system. What's the saying, "You can make some of the happy some of the time...."

They are talking about reviewing cases. I would guess that most of these are going to be victimless crimes. Otherwise the victim will have a say and if they disagree I doubt there will be clemency. Some of the wall street folks that got convicted have victims.

Depending on the success/failure of the endeavor, perhaps it can be expanded to look at other crimes.

[chuckd]

OK so how many of the fat cats that almost wreaked the worlds economy went to jail?

Not many. And none of the major players.

Most people in jail in the US are people of color. Funny how this is the same group of people who are at a great disadvantage with respect to access to health care, jobs, education, etc.

Looking at the prison population demographic, it is not far off the mark to call it 'Incarceration Genocide' against minority populations in that country.

Gotta love how so-called educated people call others who have differing opinions 'dumb' and 'ignorant'

Did you ever stop to think that one reason such a disproportionate number of people of color are in jail is because they have, very simply, been committing the crimes?

please notice I am not calling you 'dumb' or 'ignorant'.

[Ulysses G.]

In America, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites.

[hawker9000]

In America, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites.

The rate of babies born into single-parent homes is also very high for blacks. Yes, I do believe that has something to do with crime rates as a later consequence.

[kimbathewhitelion]

People need to know "retired" in the US means 'forced' to retire if to keep their pensions.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Only in a very small number of cases

If you think this is just one crazy retired cop...

Check out the below video.. LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) is a very large organization of not only retired cops but also has members that are still active duty, as well as lawyers, judges, politicians, even former drug czar....

http://www.leap.cc

It has also made international links with various NGOs and has even spoken and submitted petition to UN to amend international drug treaties and will be presenting at UN conference later this year

You can find link to their 44 page amendment proposal to the UN below

http://www.leap.cc/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/LEAP_UN_Treaty_Amendment_2.26.1421-1.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just a point mate,

There's just loyalty to self values & or those that fold.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Credo]

The problem being addressed is necessarily the color of the person committing the crime, it is also about laws which provide a more severe punishment for a type of crime that is most common among blacks.

[kimbathewhitelion]

Interesting as the new anti-gov bill with the Obama admin will definitely get pushed thru, finding...can't find my tongue. Big Brother, or Orwell's 1984, is here.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[seedy]

Did you ever stop to think that one reason such a disproportionate number of people of color are in jail is because they have, very simply, been committing the crimes?

please notice I am not calling you 'dumb' or 'ignorant'.

What crimes are they committing ? Overwhelming number are for drug offenses, and I am not talking about multi kilo deals. Personal use.

The insane 'War on Drugs' is to blame for most of this. But it will never stop, because it is a proven money maker for the exact same people who draft the laws, build the prisons, fight the war, and prey on the needy.

As said above, the single parent households have their contribution, but a more in-depth assessment will show there are more than one underlying causes. Like - why are they using drugs ?

Find a solution to those problems, and the rest will go away.

Edited April 27, 2014 by seedy

[chuckd]

Did you ever stop to think that one reason such a disproportionate number of people of color are in jail is because they have, very simply, been committing the crimes?

please notice I am not calling you 'dumb' or 'ignorant'.

What crimes are they committing ? Overwhelming number are for drug offenses, and I am not talking about multi kilo deals. Personal use.

The insane 'War on Drugs' is to blame for most of this. But it will never stop, because it is a proven money maker for the exact same people who draft the laws, build the prisons, fight the war, and prey on the needy.

As said above, the single parent households have their contribution, but a more in-depth assessment will show there are more than one underlying causes. Like - why are they using drugs ?

Find a solution to those problems, and the rest will go away.

It is against federal law for people to possess narcotics for either personal use or for distribution.

Those are the laws they have violated and what they are incarcerated for after being charged with the crime and convicted in a court of law.

While you may feel the law is unjustified and mean spirited, unless the law is changed by an act of Congress and signed into law by a President, the law will remain the law, regardless how Holder, Obama or you feel about it.

Edited April 27, 2014 by chuckd

[sirineou]

Did you ever stop to think that one reason such a disproportionate number of people of color are in jail is because they have, very simply, been committing the crimes?

please notice I am not calling you 'dumb' or 'ignorant'.

What crimes are they committing ? Overwhelming number are for drug offenses, and I am not talking about multi kilo deals. Personal use.

The insane 'War on Drugs' is to blame for most of this. But it will never stop, because it is a proven money maker for the exact same people who draft the laws, build the prisons, fight the war, and prey on the needy.

As said above, the single parent households have their contribution, but a more in-depth assessment will show there are more than one underlying causes. Like - why are they using drugs ?

Find a solution to those problems, and the rest will go away.

It is against federal law for people to possess narcotics for either personal use or for distribution.

Those are the laws they have violated and what they are incarcerated for after being charged with the crime and convicted in a court of law.

While you may feel the law is unjustified and mean spirited, unless the law is changed by an act of Congress and signed into law by a President, the law will remain the law, regardless how Holder, Obama or you feel about it.

Firstly the law is unjustified

secondly it is not equally applied

Obama, like any other president has the right to pardon certain convictions.

Obama has so far pardoned 61 people far less than any other president

G.W Bush 200

B Clinton 458

GHW Bush 77

R Reagan 406

J Carter 566

G Ford 409

R Nixon 926

and the list goes on.........

So what is the controversy?

[chuckd]

Did you ever stop to think that one reason such a disproportionate number of people of color are in jail is because they have, very simply, been committing the crimes?

please notice I am not calling you 'dumb' or 'ignorant'.

What crimes are they committing ? Overwhelming number are for drug offenses, and I am not talking about multi kilo deals. Personal use.

The insane 'War on Drugs' is to blame for most of this. But it will never stop, because it is a proven money maker for the exact same people who draft the laws, build the prisons, fight the war, and prey on the needy.

As said above, the single parent households have their contribution, but a more in-depth assessment will show there are more than one underlying causes. Like - why are they using drugs ?

Find a solution to those problems, and the rest will go away.

It is against federal law for people to possess narcotics for either personal use or for distribution.

Those are the laws they have violated and what they are incarcerated for after being charged with the crime and convicted in a court of law.

While you may feel the law is unjustified and mean spirited, unless the law is changed by an act of Congress and signed into law by a President, the law will remain the law, regardless how Holder, Obama or you feel about it.

Firstly the law is unjustified

secondly it is not equally applied

Obama, like any other president has the right to pardon certain convictions.

Obama has so far pardoned 61 people far less than any other president

G.W Bush 200

B Clinton 458

GHW Bush 77

R Reagan 406

J Carter 566

G Ford 409

R Nixon 926

and the list goes on.........

So what is the controversy?

"Firstly the law is unjustified"???????

"secondly it is not equally applied"??????

My suggestion is, if you are an American, you contact your Congressional delegation and press them to enact legislation that CHANGES the law.

Just because you claim the law is unjustified is hardly enough justification for President Obama and AG Holder to forego their solemn oath of office that they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States. You might want to mention this to your Congressional delegation as well.

Your amusing little analogy about Obama pardoning fewer convicted criminals than any of the other recent Presidents is hardly worth mentioning.

Traditiionally most Presidents wait until their final day in office to release their list of pardons or commutations. Clinton issued 140 on his last day, for example.

Obama's last day in office (may it quickly arrive) will be 20 January 2017. My guess is by that time many members of his administration will be under indictment or in jail so why don't we wait until the 21st to see what his final numbers are. OK?

PS: Thanks for the "like".

[kimbathewhitelion]

Did you ever stop to think that one reason such a disproportionate number of people of color are in jail is because they have, very simply, been committing the crimes?

please notice I am not calling you 'dumb' or 'ignorant'.

What crimes are they committing ? Overwhelming number are for drug offenses, and I am not talking about multi kilo deals. Personal use.

The insane 'War on Drugs' is to blame for most of this. But it will never stop, because it is a proven money maker for the exact same people who draft the laws, build the prisons, fight the war, and prey on the needy.

As said above, the single parent households have their contribution, but a more in-depth assessment will show there are more than one underlying causes. Like - why are they using drugs ?

Find a solution to those problems, and the rest will go away.

It is against federal law for people to possess narcotics for either personal use or for distribution.

Those are the laws they have violated and what they are incarcerated for after being charged with the crime and convicted in a court of law.

While you may feel the law is unjustified and mean spirited, unless the law is changed by an act of Congress and signed into law by a President, the law will remain the law, regardless how Holder, Obama or you feel about it.

Firstly the law is unjustified

secondly it is not equally applied

Obama, like any other president has the right to pardon certain convictions.

Obama has so far pardoned 61 people far less than any other president

G.W Bush 200

B Clinton 458

GHW Bush 77

R Reagan 406

J Carter 566

G Ford 409

R Nixon 926

and the list goes on.........

So what is the controversy?

Initially considering until some, obvious way old timer started talking presidents as if they make a difference. Back to the cupboard with you...or here's some glue, go play.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[sirineou]

It is against federal law for people to possess narcotics for either personal use or for distribution.

Those are the laws they have violated and what they are incarcerated for after being charged with the crime and convicted in a court of law.

While you may feel the law is unjustified and mean spirited, unless the law is changed by an act of Congress and signed into law by a President, the law will remain the law, regardless how Holder, Obama or you feel about it.

Firstly the law is unjustified

secondly it is not equally applied

Obama, like any other president has the right to pardon certain convictions.

Obama has so far pardoned 61 people far less than any other president

G.W Bush 200

B Clinton 458

GHW Bush 77

R Reagan 406

J Carter 566

G Ford 409

R Nixon 926

and the list goes on.........

So what is the controversy?

"Firstly the law is unjustified"???????

"secondly it is not equally applied"??????

My suggestion is, if you are an American, you contact your Congressional delegation and press them to enact legislation that CHANGES the law.

Just because you claim the law is unjustified is hardly enough justification for President Obama and AG Holder to forego their solemn oath of office that they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States. You might want to mention this to your Congressional delegation as well.

Your amusing little analogy about Obama pardoning fewer convicted criminals than any of the other recent Presidents is hardly worth mentioning.

Traditiionally most Presidents wait until their final day in office to release their list of pardons or commutations. Clinton issued 140 on his last day, for example.

Obama's last day in office (may it quickly arrive) will be 20 January 2017. My guess is by that time many members of his administration will be under indictment or in jail so why don't we wait until the 21st to see what his final numbers are. OK?

PS: Thanks for the "like".

How has Obama betrayed his oath to the constitution?

Why would it be constitutional for every other president, but not for Obama?

What makes you think he will not wait until the end of his term to release his list of pardons?

[hawker9000]

I think there's a difference between granting clemency to someone based on time served and some kind of evidence that the convict in question has been assessed by someone somewhere as having been rehabilitated, and wholesale amnesty based on personal belief that the laws that put them there were "unfair" The president has a right to overide a parole board's decision on a prisoner's release, but really has no right to substitute his opinion for the law of the land.

'Not saying other presidents haven't ever done so, but Obama takes his executive power to a whole new level. His open declaration on enforcement of immigration laws, for example, mark him as an obvious public enemy when it comes to his constitutional duty to uphold ALL federal laws, regardless of any personal opinions or partisan position on them.

Jan 2017 can't come fast enough. Even Hillary would be a vast improvement. And if he stsrts with these releases now, it's not going to make her campaign any easier.. If he had any brains, he'd have waited until his last days in office, after the election (but then again, maybe his dance card is already full with mischief planned for that timeframe), or AT LEAST until after this year's mid-terms.

Edited April 28, 2014 by hawker9000

[chuckd]

It is against federal law for people to possess narcotics for either personal use or for distribution.

Those are the laws they have violated and what they are incarcerated for after being charged with the crime and convicted in a court of law.

While you may feel the law is unjustified and mean spirited, unless the law is changed by an act of Congress and signed into law by a President, the law will remain the law, regardless how Holder, Obama or you feel about it.

Firstly the law is unjustified

secondly it is not equally applied

Obama, like any other president has the right to pardon certain convictions.

Obama has so far pardoned 61 people far less than any other president

G.W Bush 200

B Clinton 458

GHW Bush 77

R Reagan 406

J Carter 566

G Ford 409

R Nixon 926

and the list goes on.........

So what is the controversy?

"Firstly the law is unjustified"???????

"secondly it is not equally applied"??????

My suggestion is, if you are an American, you contact your Congressional delegation and press them to enact legislation that CHANGES the law.

Just because you claim the law is unjustified is hardly enough justification for President Obama and AG Holder to forego their solemn oath of office that they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States. You might want to mention this to your Congressional delegation as well.

Your amusing little analogy about Obama pardoning fewer convicted criminals than any of the other recent Presidents is hardly worth mentioning.

Traditiionally most Presidents wait until their final day in office to release their list of pardons or commutations. Clinton issued 140 on his last day, for example.

Obama's last day in office (may it quickly arrive) will be 20 January 2017. My guess is by that time many members of his administration will be under indictment or in jail so why don't we wait until the 21st to see what his final numbers are. OK?

PS: Thanks for the "like".

How has Obama betrayed his oath to the constitution?

Why would it be constitutional for every other president, but not for Obama?

What makes you think he will not wait until the end of his term to release his list of pardons?

1. How has Obama betrayed his oath?

Just one of many but, how about the over 30 changes to an established law that he has claimed is the benchmark of his administration?

2. Why would it be constitutional for every other President but not Obama?

Perhaps you can point out where I made any such claim. My opinion is should any President act as this one has, they, too, would be acting unconstitutionally.

3. What makes me think he will wait until the end of his term?

This one is easy. He will need to know which of his donors, bundlers, aides, Chicago politicians, etc. are under indictment or in jail by then and he will need to do it on the last day. They all do it so it will be nothing unusual.

Edit in: I just did a little research and find that GWBush at the same five year mark of his Presidency had pardoned 69 citizens, versus the 61 of Obama. Bush did not pardon anyone on the 20th of January but he did pardon 19 people on 1 January 2009.

Edited April 28, 2014 by chuckd

[smotherb]

There is a history of zero tolerance drug convictions in the US for as little as smoking a single joint of marijuana. According to the Justice department, "The Department of Justice estimates that the amendment would reduce the federal prison population by roughly 6,550 inmates over five years. In 2010, nearly half of 216,000 total federal inmates were serving time for drug-related crimes." Estamates are $45-60k per year to hold a prisoner, 6550 less inmates could be a savings of as much as $393M per year--not to mention the equity of more realstic penalties for recreational use of drugs.

How "Wiki" of you, but in the end, says absolutely nothing.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

How inept of you. As I said, it is from a DoJ source. Consequently, I see how it says absolutley nothing to you.

[sirineou]

I have no idea what you are talking about

How has Obama betrayed his oath to the constitution?

Why would it be constitutional for every other president, but not for Obama?

What makes you think he will not wait until the end of his term to release his list of pardons?

1. How has Obama betrayed his oath?

Just one of many but, how about the over 30 changes to an established law that he has claimed is the benchmark of his administration?

2. Why would it be constitutional for every other President but not Obama?

Perhaps you can point out where I made any such claim. My opinion is should any President act as this one has, they, too, would be acting unconstitutionally.

3. What makes me think he will wait until the end of his term?

This one is easy. He will need to know which of his donors, bundlers, aides, Chicago politicians, etc. are under indictment or in jail by then and he will need to do it on the last day. They all do it so it will be nothing unusual.

Edit in: I just did a little research and find that GWBush at the same five year mark of his Presidency had pardoned 69 citizens, versus the 61 of Obama. Bush did not pardon anyone on the 20th of January but he did pardon 19 people on 1 January 2009.

I have no idea what you are talking about , this thread is about the clemency list that Obama has requested, and not a discussion of the constitutionality of decisions he has made in his term as president. If you wish to discuss that I suggest you start a new thread.

The rest of your reply makes even less sense.

[chuckd]

Quoting your post number 81.

I have no idea what you are talking about

How has Obama betrayed his oath to the constitution?

Why would it be constitutional for every other president, but not for Obama?

What makes you think he will not wait until the end of his term to release his list of pardons?

1. How has Obama betrayed his oath?

Just one of many but, how about the over 30 changes to an established law that he has claimed is the benchmark of his administration?

2. Why would it be constitutional for every other President but not Obama?

Perhaps you can point out where I made any such claim. My opinion is should any President act as this one has, they, too, would be acting unconstitutionally.

3. What makes me think he will wait until the end of his term?

This one is easy. He will need to know which of his donors, bundlers, aides, Chicago politicians, etc. are under indictment or in jail by then and he will need to do it on the last day. They all do it so it will be nothing unusual.

Edit in: I just did a little research and find that GWBush at the same five year mark of his Presidency had pardoned 69 citizens, versus the 61 of Obama. Bush did not pardon anyone on the 20th of January but he did pardon 19 people on 1 January 2009.

I have no idea what you are talking about , this thread is about the clemency list that Obama has requested, and not a discussion of the constitutionality of decisions he has made in his term as president. If you wish to discuss that I suggest you start a new thread.

The rest of your reply makes even less sense.

You might want to stop changing a post after you have made it and your edit time has run out. It's rather naughty.

Following is what your real post made at 14:54 hours today actually said...See post number 77.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"How has Obama betrayed his oath to the constitution?

Why would it be constitutional for every other president, but not for Obama?

What makes you think he will not wait until the end of his term to release his list of pardons?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice any difference?

[Basil B]

I am British and amazed at just how harsh the American justice system is compared to the UK and one thing that is clear it does not stop crime, and I totally agree that for persons who are not a risk to the community alternative punishments should be found.

[hawker9000]

I am British and amazed at just how harsh the American justice system is compared to the UK and one thing that is clear it does not stop crime, and I totally agree that for persons who are not a risk to the community alternative punishments should be found.

Oh, I don't know. A person behind bars may still be committing crimes, but he's committing them there 'midst his fellow criminals. So, it pretty much works for me.

NO justice system "stops crime". Not the U.S. system; not the British system; no system yet devised. What a ridiculous and trivial observation..The best you can hope for is that the same people are prevented from offending again, and others are hopefully deterred.

[smotherb]

This is a great thing being done by the Obama administration. Sooner would have been better, but it's a step forward. The percentage of Americans, especially minority group Americans, in prison for NON-VIOLENT crimes is a national scandal and source of shame.

Seriously? So only violent criminals should be jailed? Is that what you are saying?

If so that is really a dumb thing to say. Break the law cause at least you won't loose your freedom.

Yes, only those convicted of crimes which hurt others should be incarcerated. Those convicted of crimes which hurt only themsleves should be handled otherwise--probation, community service, fines, counsel, etc. or all the forementioned. For example, armed robbery should be and is, in most places, punishable by jail time; while unarmed robbery is often called simple theft and treated much less harshly. In relation to drugs, I am not speaking of drug dealers, who hurt others; I am speaking of drug users, who hurt only themsleves. For terrorism, murder, or rape the severest punishment is warranted.

[hawker9000]

This is a great thing being done by the Obama administration. Sooner would have been better, but it's a step forward. The percentage of Americans, especially minority group Americans, in prison for NON-VIOLENT crimes is a national scandal and source of shame.

Seriously? So only violent criminals should be jailed? Is that what you are saying?

If so that is really a dumb thing to say. Break the law cause at least you won't loose your freedom.

Yes, only those convicted of crimes which hurt others should be incarcerated. Those convicted of crimes which hurt only themsleves should be handled otherwise--probation, community service, fines, counsel, etc. or all the forementioned. For example, armed robbery should be and is, in most places, punishable by jail time; while unarmed robbery is often called simple theft and treated much less harshly. In relation to drugs, I am not speaking of drug dealers, who hurt others; I am speaking of drug users, who hurt only themsleves. For terrorism, murder, or rape the severest punishment is warranted.

Totally and horribly incorrect. You couldn't be more wrong. Drug users pump money into a global drug trafficking trade that brutalizes and murders innocents every day. Drug cartels & gangs rival the world's worst terrorists for viciousness and lethality. And drug users pay for that.

And then there are those who go on to commit crimes as a result of being under the influence...

Nope, drug use DEFINITELY NOT A victimless crime!

Edited April 28, 2014 by hawker9000

[CWMcMurray]

This is a great thing being done by the Obama administration. Sooner would have been better, but it's a step forward. The percentage of Americans, especially minority group Americans, in prison for NON-VIOLENT crimes is a national scandal and source of shame.

Seriously? So only violent criminals should be jailed? Is that what you are saying?

If so that is really a dumb thing to say. Break the law cause at least you won't loose your freedom.

Yes, only those convicted of crimes which hurt others should be incarcerated. Those convicted of crimes which hurt only themsleves should be handled otherwise--probation, community service, fines, counsel, etc. or all the forementioned. For example, armed robbery should be and is, in most places, punishable by jail time; while unarmed robbery is often called simple theft and treated much less harshly. In relation to drugs, I am not speaking of drug dealers, who hurt others; I am speaking of drug users, who hurt only themsleves. For terrorism, murder, or rape the severest punishment is warranted.

Totally and horribly incorrect. You couldn't be more wrong. Drug users pump money into a global drug trafficking trade that brutalizes and murders innocents every day. Drug cartels & gangs rival the world's worst terrorists for viciousness and lethality. And drug users pay for that.

And then there are those who go on to commit crimes as a result of being under the influence...

Nope, drug use DEFINITELY NOT A victimless crime!

The money from the drug trade goes to Cartels and terrorists because the government is not willing to legalize and regulate the drug market.

Much as in the days of prohibition of alcohol in the US all of the liquor money went to gangsters and mafia ... Then once prohibition ended..

The government regulated it... Taxes it ... And the money is now going to big corporations and governments ... Not gangsters or mafia or terrorists...

If you are really being honest with your self... Do you really believe that there is ever going to be a time in the future where drugs are not going to be available ?

Is it possible to eliminate drugs from our world?

Of course not... So who do you want running the drug trade? Gangsters mafia and terrorists? Or would it be better run and regulated by governments, corporations who can be held accountable in our court systems if they don't follow the regulations set?

Also as to those that commit crimes under the influence ... Isn't that already illegal? And for good reason, if you hurt others or steel or damage someone's property that is wrong and the person needs to be prosecuted

In fact we already have laws in place for those scenarios.

Are you any more dead if you are killed by a high driver or a drunk driver?

Is some one driving on illegal drugs any worse than some one driving drunk on alcohol?

You should really watch some of the video links I posted on this thread earlier and would be interested to here if you feel the same way after watching them

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hawker9000]

You're chasing your tail and deliberately obfuscating the current reality with the way YOU think things OUGHT to be. The FACT is that the use IS illegal ( and not just in the US) and users ARE financing the violence. Go sell your tired drug use justifications somewhere else; most Americans are not buying. If someone wants to participate in the violence, they can do some time for it as far as I'm concerned.

[sirineou]

Quoting your post number 81.

I have no idea what you are talking about

How has Obama betrayed his oath to the constitution?

Why would it be constitutional for every other president, but not for Obama?

What makes you think he will not wait until the end of his term to release his list of pardons?

1. How has Obama betrayed his oath?

Just one of many but, how about the over 30 changes to an established law that he has claimed is the benchmark of his administration?

2. Why would it be constitutional for every other President but not Obama?

Perhaps you can point out where I made any such claim. My opinion is should any President act as this one has, they, too, would be acting unconstitutionally.

3. What makes me think he will wait until the end of his term?

This one is easy. He will need to know which of his donors, bundlers, aides, Chicago politicians, etc. are under indictment or in jail by then and he will need to do it on the last day. They all do it so it will be nothing unusual.

Edit in: I just did a little research and find that GWBush at the same five year mark of his Presidency had pardoned 69 citizens, versus the 61 of Obama. Bush did not pardon anyone on the 20th of January but he did pardon 19 people on 1 January 2009.

I have no idea what you are talking about , this thread is about the clemency list that Obama has requested, and not a discussion of the constitutionality of decisions he has made in his term as president. If you wish to discuss that I suggest you start a new thread.

The rest of your reply makes even less sense.

You might want to stop changing a post after you have made it and your edit time has run out. It's rather naughty.

Following is what your real post made at 14:54 hours today actually said...See post number 77.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"How has Obama betrayed his oath to the constitution?

Why would it be constitutional for every other president, but not for Obama?

What makes you think he will not wait until the end of his term to release his list of pardons?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice any difference?

I have not edited any of my posts

when answering a post reply I remove some of them and leave only the ones that I am replying to because this forum will not allow you to have too many quotes with in a reply.

So let me ask you again

How is Obama offering clemency, unconstitutional

and what makes you think he will publish the list before the end of his term

Keep in mind, this is a thread about the clemency proposal of the Obama administration .

PS: notice the large number of quotes in this reply, soon if you like to reply you might need to remove some of them, otherwise the TVF system will not allow you.

Edited April 28, 2014 by sirineou

[seedy]

Pres. Obama is trying to right a wrong - a very big wrong.

I can not believe that in 2014 there are people defending the war on drugs.

That it is ok to go to jail for 20 years under the 3 strikes law, when they are for minor drug possession charges.

And using what could be described as the 'Concentration Camp Guard' defense - I was only following orders/obeying the law.

Sad.