Police State: Nonviolent Offenders Obeyed State Laws, Went To Jail Anyway...

[The Rabbi]

Amazing what the article doesn't say.
What does the fact she had a gun have to do with it? My guess is she was already a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. That's 10 years minimum. Selling crack is an innocent activity?
This is my beef with the narco libertarians. First they pretend the drug issue is about a guy smoking a joint after work at home. But it isn't. Because after marijuana they will make the same argument about cocaine. Then crack. Then meth. Those drugs are hardly harmless and we have seen what they do to inner cities and rural areas.
Thread fail.

 

[theHawk]

Amazing what the article doesn't say.
What does the fact she had a gun have to do with it? My guess is she was already a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. That's 10 years minimum. Selling crack is an innocent activity?
This is my beef with the narco libertarians. First they pretend the drug issue is about a guy smoking a joint after work at home. But it isn't. Because after marijuana they will make the same argument about cocaine. Then crack. Then meth. Those drugs are hardly harmless and we have seen what they do to inner cities and rural areas.
Thread fail.

Yup, its all part of the shitbag liberal agenda: to release all drug dealers back into society. After all, they'd all be Dem voters if free.

 

[jtpr312]

'Half the prison population is nonviolent drug offenders'


Sharanda Jones never considered herself a criminal mastermind. Her job was just buying the cocaine powder; other members of the organization rendered it into crack cocaine and sold it. Jones owned a gun — for self-protection — but never used it.

And yet Jones, a nonviolent drug purchaser, is serving life without parole — at a cost to the taxpayers of over a million dollars.

“She was treated as a leader, and at the time she really believed that she was minimally involved and decided to go to trial,” said Molly Gill, government affairs counsel at Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a criminal justice advocacy organization. “When you do that … if you are a leader convicted, that’s considered perjury. All of those factors bumped her sentence up and up and up.”

At issue are federal laws that compel judges to impose harsh sentences on convicted defendants. Most cover nonviolent offenses and are largely drug related.

But thanks to a growing sense among people on all sides of the political spectrum that the law should change, Congress is poised to revisit mandatory minimums. It was recently announced that the Justice Safety Valve Act, a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, will get a Senate committee hearing in September.

If approved by Congress, the act would restore some measure of discretion to judges, allowing them to impose lighter sentences on nonviolent offenders when appropriate.

Mandatory minimums are an increasing concern for Conservatives. For one thing, the cost to incarcerate nonviolent offenders is simply too high...

Read more: Nonviolent offenders obeyed state laws, went to jail anyway | The Daily Caller

She, and dope dealing scum like her, are a scourge on society. Her actions directly lead to most of the murders committed in inner city neighborhoods over occupation of prime dope dealing "spots", not to mention the fact that her actions lead to so many of our citizens being low life dope addicts who commit millions of crimes to buy the product she is responsible for putting on the streets. We do agree on one thing though. We agree she should not be locked up for life at the cost of over $1,000,000 to the tax payers. We differ though on what should be done. Your article implies less jail time, I think we should give this dope dealing bitch, and EVERY other dope dealer, their 9oz's behind the right ear at a cost of approx. $.03 each to the tax payers.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

It's not about any of that drug crap their in prison for, we need to separate strong willed people from the sheeple, or the sheeple may get some ideas, so if we hand them a harsh penalty, the sheeple will BITCH DOWN and conform.

 

[Flopper]

Cancer is an illness. Influenza is an illness. Drug addiction is a lifestyle choice.

That said, I do agree that it should not be a crime. Decriminalize them and let's finally be done with this nonsense once and for all.

A lot of people would disagree with you including myself. One does not wake up one day and decide to become a drug addict. It's not a conscious choice.

Really? These people were forced to take drugs against their will?

Doing drugs for the first time is a conscious choice, no matter what spin you put on it.

Taking an illegal drug doesn't make you a drug addict just as taking a drink doesn't make you an alcoholic. It's estimated that over a third of the population has taken illegal drugs yet only about 10 to 15% become addicted. Yes, it's a conscious choice to take an illegal drug but it's not a life style choice. There are three primary factors, biochemical, mental, and genetic that determine whether a person who takes illegal drugs becomes addicted.

 

[paulitician]

Lets get Law Enforcement focused on the brutal violent animals out there. People like to get high. That's been the case all throughout human history. I don't believe it constitutes criminal behavior. It's a choice. And often, it can be a bad choice. But wanting to get high doesn't = criminal. It's time for our Justice System to evolve and become more flexible.

A person with a drug problem needs help. And locking them up in cages with heinous murderers and rapists isn't likely to help them. Obviously it's a different story for anyone who commits violent crimes. A cage is where they belong. We just need more common sense and flexibility in our Justice System. I'm not concerned about Joe Schmo who wants to get high. He's not likely to be a violent criminal. And if he is, he'll be put in a cage. I want our Police focused on the dangerous criminals out there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks for the above. We see that right wing conservative reactionaries are fascist statists that want government to solve their probems. The libertarian position is to decriminalize drugs, regulate and tax them: far fewer folks in prison, far less murders, violence, and crimes.

 

[paulitician]

Thanks for the above.

We see that right wing conservative reactionaries are fascist statists that want government to solve their probems.

Well, i consider myself to be a right wing Conservative. And i'm pretty sure Rand Paul considers himself one too. This Legislation being proposed is a Bi-Partisan effort. Common sense should trump petty partisan politics.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A lot of people would disagree with you including myself. One does not wake up one day and decide to become a drug addict. It's not a conscious choice.

You can disagree, but you're wrong. It most certainly is a conscious choice. You don't wake up one day and are just addicted to drugs. You choose to start using them. (Yes, there are isolated incidents of people becoming inadvertently addicted to stuff they had legal prescriptions for, but I'm not talking about those people) If you don't make that choice, you don't get addicted. It is not an illness. That is an attempt to excuse poor decision making.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The personal responsibility, folks, is the individual.

That you don't like does not mean shit.

The war on drugs have had far greater setbacks then any victories.

Burglary, invasion, rape, theft, scores of thousandss of murders, the highest incarceration rate in the world, hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain, private prison companies getting paid to lock up citizens, corruption of prison guard unions lobbying for greater sentences for lesser crimes.

Are you crazy? The answer is not the current right wing progressive statism pressed by so many of you: it's a failure.

 

[Flopper]

A lot of people would disagree with you including myself. One does not wake up one day and decide to become a drug addict. It's not a conscious choice.

You can disagree, but you're wrong. It most certainly is a conscious choice. You don't wake up one day and are just addicted to drugs. You choose to start using them. (Yes, there are isolated incidents of people becoming inadvertently addicted to stuff they had legal prescriptions for, but I'm not talking about those people) If you don't make that choice, you don't get addicted. It is not an illness. That is an attempt to excuse poor decision making.

You could say the same thing about alcohol; if you didn't take the first drink you wouldn't become an alcoholic. The first time you use drugs, take a drink, placed a bet, smoke a cigarette is a first step toward addiction but that doesn't means you are choosing a life style of addiction because most people do not become addicted and no one plans to become addicted.

Addiction is a disease according the American Medical Association and most health insurance policies. Treating drug use by addicts as a crime to be punished is about the worst way to handle drug addition. In the second half of the 20th century we got tough on drug use filling our prisons with drug users instead of treatment centers and how well has this worked? Punishment for drug abuse does not cure addiction. It never has and it never will.


http://leg.mt.gov/content/Committee...tees/jrnl-nursing-understanding-addiction.pdf

 

[R.C. Christian]

I really like the way this site has awoken to the presence of the police state - a subject I've been covering and writing about for years.

 

[OnePercenter]

I've lived for 56 years and have found it very easy to stay out of jail. I don't feel anything for those that haven't.

 

[paulitician]

I've lived for 56 years and have found it very easy to stay out of jail. I don't feel anything for those that haven't.

Compassion. Try it. It's what Jesus would want.

 

[paulitician]

That's your right.

You're wrong.. But you have the right to be wrong.

There's too many nonviolent drug offenders in our Prisons. It's costly and unnecessary.

It is costly.
Lock em up, feed em nothing, let them police themselves.
If they try to escape, shoot em.
Save money, free up space in prison all good.

Prisons are bursting at the seams?
So why are liberals planning to jail tea party candidates and donors under the NDAA?

How bout we don't waste time and money locking em up at all? Using drugs is not criminal. People like to get high. That's never gonna change. Why make millions of Citizens criminals when they're not? You wanna get high, so be it. Go for it. Lets get our Police focused on the brutal violent criminals.

 

[Darkwind]

So she conspires to deal drugs and we are supposed to somehow feel bad for her?

What about all those people who have been killed because of powder she bought?

Sorry no sympathy. You don't want to serve jail time for a "non-violent" offense? Don't commit a "non-violent" offense. Pure and simple.

More importantly, how many children become addicted to these kinds of drugs and she is part of that supply chain. Children addicted to drugs doing drug running for the dealers so that they can avoid being charged as adults.

That too is non-violent, isn't it?

Shall we just do away with every and all standards of conduct in this country Paulician?

Why stop there. Lets let the violent offenders out too, because we just don't have the room to incarcerate them.

 

[paulitician]

So she conspires to deal drugs and we are supposed to somehow feel bad for her?

What about all those people who have been killed because of powder she bought?

Sorry no sympathy. You don't want to serve jail time for a "non-violent" offense? Don't commit a "non-violent" offense. Pure and simple.

More importantly, how many children become addicted to these kinds of drugs and she is part of that supply chain. Children addicted to drugs doing drug running for the dealers so that they can avoid being charged as adults.

That too is non-violent, isn't it?

Shall we just do away with every and all standards of conduct in this country Paulician?

Why stop there. Lets let the violent offenders out too, because we just don't have the room to incarcerate them.

Who advocates children using drugs? That would seem pretty bizarre. Look, you wanna get high or drunk, that's your call. Just don't hurt others in the process. It's your business. We don't need our Police wasting time & money hunting drug users down. We need to evolve and get past that.

 

[Darkwind]

So she conspires to deal drugs and we are supposed to somehow feel bad for her?

What about all those people who have been killed because of powder she bought?

Sorry no sympathy. You don't want to serve jail time for a "non-violent" offense? Don't commit a "non-violent" offense. Pure and simple.

More importantly, how many children become addicted to these kinds of drugs and she is part of that supply chain. Children addicted to drugs doing drug running for the dealers so that they can avoid being charged as adults.

That too is non-violent, isn't it?

Shall we just do away with every and all standards of conduct in this country Paulician?

Why stop there. Lets let the violent offenders out too, because we just don't have the room to incarcerate them.

Who advocates children using drugs? That would seem pretty bizarre. Look, you wanna get high or drunk, that's your call. Just don't hurt others in the process. It's your business. We don't need our Police wasting time & money hunting drug users down. We need to evolve and get past that.

That is NOT evolution. If anything, it is the complete opposite.

If you wish to advocate no standards in civilization, then by all means, show some sack and say so.

But it is an absolute lie to think that people who purchase drugs are not contributing to those drugs reaching our children, either directly or indirectly by their actions.

Of course, its non violent so we shouldn't lock these people up.....I'm all for decriminalizing pot and treating it like alcohol, but when your talking narcotics and opiate based drugs. I could care less if they have to share a cell with 8 bubba's with hard cocks.

 

[paulitician]

More importantly, how many children become addicted to these kinds of drugs and she is part of that supply chain. Children addicted to drugs doing drug running for the dealers so that they can avoid being charged as adults.

That too is non-violent, isn't it?

Shall we just do away with every and all standards of conduct in this country Paulician?

Why stop there. Lets let the violent offenders out too, because we just don't have the room to incarcerate them.

Who advocates children using drugs? That would seem pretty bizarre. Look, you wanna get high or drunk, that's your call. Just don't hurt others in the process. It's your business. We don't need our Police wasting time & money hunting drug users down. We need to evolve and get past that.

That is NOT evolution. If anything, it is the complete opposite.

If you wish to advocate no standards in civilization, then by all means, show some sack and say so.

But it is an absolute lie to think that people who purchase drugs are not contributing to those drugs reaching our children, either directly or indirectly by their actions.

Of course, its non violent so we shouldn't lock these people up.....I'm all for decriminalizing pot and treating it like alcohol, but when your talking narcotics and opiate based drugs. I could care less if they have to share a cell with 8 bubba's with hard cocks.

Using drugs does not make you a criminal, anymore than drinking alcohol does. It's time to accept that.

 

[Londoner]

This is mind-blowing, because I remember the Reagan "law and order" politicos making real political hay out of making outlandish sentencing guidelines for relatively minor offenses. Republicans just LOVED prison back in the 80's.

Are you telling me that the "law and order" crowd is finally rethinking this? It's a bit late, since much damage has already been done . . .

NYC in the 70s is the perfect example of why Reagan created the War on Drugs, which played a large role in America's uniquely high incarceration rates.

NYC, like many of the larger northern cities, were going through a period of de-industrialization (as manufacturing was being shipped down south, and then ultimately to China). This loss of working class jobs increased the size of the superfluous population. There were also a large number of African Americans who had not been assimilated into mainstream work'a'day culture, resulting in large ghettos. The City was filled with crime as Nixon's Silent White Majority headed for the suburbs ("White Flight"). Reagan promised to clean up our great cities by restoring law and order. The War on Drugs was a major component of this. [I encourage people to research this. Reagan took a very liberal approach by placing government as parent over the "sick" body politic, whose motivation and ethics had been sapped by drugs (and sin). Please recall the famous after school TV commercials "you can't fly when you're high". It was very creepy because Washington was now playing the role of parent, however well intentioned. Talk about big government]

By making state law enforcement a federal concern, Reagan created a recipe for bureaucratic waste and overreach on a collosal scale. He was taking power out of the hands of states and local judges and putting his trust in a one-size-fits-all Washington solution. Unfortunately, once you create a government agency, even if you have the best of intentions, you incentivize the creation of massive budgets along with special interest lobbying (which forms like a cloud of locusts around the taxpayer's wallet). Even worse: the War on drugs became a tool for giving the federal government massive surveillance power over free citizens. This happened slowly until 9/11, which finally gave the GOP the power to create the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security. This is exactly how State Power was built in the Old Soviet Union. They used a "concern for protecting people" to justify increasing government surveillance over the people. BUT, that surveillance was increasingly used not for protecting people, but for consolidating political power and destroying the political opposition. This is why I find it almost hilarious that the Bush Fed used the Patriot Act to trap Eliot Spitzer (-they got him when he moved $10K+). Spitzer had been extremely critical of the Bush administration for its roll in the derivative and housing meltdown - so the Fed used its newfound power under the Patriot Act to get rid of him. Pure Soviet Union.

[Anyway, you get the point. Each party uses admittedly real threats in order to give government more money and power. The Left uses health care and social justice to concentrate power in Washington. The Right uses national security. And yes, the parties have merged to some extent, so it's getting harder to tell who is using what trick and from which playbook]

Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to protect you from poverty.

Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to protect you from drugs.

Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to protect you from terrorism.

People don't get. Any time Big Government asks you to give it more money and power, the result is a bunch of unintended consequences which are far worse than the inflated threat used to bankrupt your wallet and privacy. Listen, I'd love to get rid of all evil doers. Indeed, I'd love to turn Iraq into a suburb of Sacramento and replace every camel with an SUV. But, unlike my political opponents, I don't think Washington has the power or competence to change the way whole continents live. And I'm not dumb enough to think they believe it either.

We are being played like stupid sheep by those in power who live in mansions on the hill, laughing at how stupid we are.

The war on drugs is a farce. It started with a benign desire to clean up our cities and make the world safer . . . but then it grew into a Big Government Frankenstein. Citizens don't see this because their eyes are being strategically diverted to gay marriage and communists hiding under the bed.

Joke is on us.