Obama issues record-breaking 214 commutations

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Lady Marva
    Senior Member
    • Wednesday, June 17, 2015
    • 13321

    #1

    Obama issues record-breaking 214 commutations

    Obama's legacy......................

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ions/88007750/
    WASHINGTON — President Obama commuted the sentences of 214 more federal inmates Wednesday, the largest single-day grant of commutations in the nation's history.

    Obama has now used his constitutional clemency power to shorten the sentences of more federal inmates than any president since Calvin Coolidge.

    The early release of the 214 prisoners — most convicted of low-level drug offenses — is part of Obama's effort to correct what he views as unreasonably long mandatory minimum sentences, some dating back decades. The oldest case commuted Wednesday: Richard L. Reser of Sedgwick, Kan., who was given a 40-year sentence for dealing methamphatamine and firearm possession in 1989. He'll be released Dec. 1.

    "The more we understand the human stories behind this problem, the sooner we can start making real changes that keep our streets safe, break the cycle of incarceration in this country, and save taxpayers like you money," Obama said in a Facebook post.

    The president's clemency power usually takes one of two forms: Pardons, which give offenders a full legal forgiveness for their crimes, and commutations, which shorten prison sentences but often leave other conditions intact. Many of those granted commutations Wednesday will remain under court supervision even after release.

    Thirty-five recipients won't be released for another two years. Eggleston said every case is different, and that some applicants need more time for rehabilitation. "Underlying all the president's commutation decisions is the belief that these deserving individuals should be given the tools to succeed in their second chance," he said.

    Political scientist P.S. Ruckman Jr., who tracks pardon and commutation data, said it's the largest one-day grant of commutations in history. The previous record: July 26, 1935, when President Franklin Roosevelt issued 151 for immigration-related offenses.

    Still, advocates for more aggressive presidential clemency say even that pace is not enough to fulfill the promise of Obama's 2014 clemency initiative, which hoped to shorten the sentences of offenders who would have been given shorter sentences if they had been convicted of the same crime today.

    “While the commutations President Obama granted today are an important step forward, they remind us of how much more work this administration has to do if it is to grant relief for every person eligible," said Mark Osler, a law professor at St. Thomas University. There were 11,861 commutation petitions pending as of June, and Osler said at least 1,500 of them are eligible for commutation under the administration's own criteria.
  • Adam
    The way to a woman's heart is through her taste buds.
    • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
    • 16885

    #2
    More mythical "non-violent drug offenders."
    It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
    In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
    Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
    Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

    Comment

    • Lady Marva
      Senior Member
      • Wednesday, June 17, 2015
      • 13321

      #3
      Originally posted by Adam View Post
      More mythical "non-violent drug offenders."
      Job creation for law enforcement.................

      Comment

      • Michele
        Senior Member
        • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
        • 13964

        #4
        Originally posted by Adam View Post
        More mythical "non-violent drug offenders."
        Barack Obama commutes the sentences of more than fifty felons with firearms violations
        May we raise children who love the unloved things - the dandelion, the worm, the spiderlings.
        Children who sense the rose needs the thorn and run into rainswept days the same way they turn towards the sun...
        And when they're grown and someone has to speak for those who have no voice,
        may they draw upon that wilder bond, those days of tending tender things and be the one.

        Comment

        • 80zephyr
          Senior Member
          • Saturday, January 3, 2015
          • 19074

          #5
          Would be nice to know the race of those commuted? Do you think he followed the leftist standard of having each race represented by the percentage of the general population?

          Me neither.

          Mark
          Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

          "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

          Political correctness is ideological fascism. It’s the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

          Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

          Comment

          • Lady Marva
            Senior Member
            • Wednesday, June 17, 2015
            • 13321

            #6
            Firearms are non-violent. They're part of nature. Don'tchano..........

            Comment

            • Norm dePlume
              Err foil
              • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
              • 14904

              #7
              Originally posted by Lady Marva View Post
              Firearms are non-violent. They're part of nature. Don'tchano..........
              I keep hearing that guns don't kill people. And I'm pretty sure it's generally acknowledged by gun people that merely possessing or carrying a firearm is not a violent act.
              Enjoy.

              Comment

              • Celeste Chalfonte
                apostate
                • Saturday, October 5, 2013
                • 27897

                #8
                My immediate reaction to that is about what you'd expect. I would, however, like to know more about the offenses, the offenders and the state in which they occurred. California's firearms laws are so Byzantine that a truly non-violent drug offender could be charged and convicted of a gun offense and have never committed an act most of us would consider a crime.

                For example, it's illegal to possess an unregistered gun in your own home in CA. If we had succeeded in moving my mom out here, odds are she would have committed a gun violation, because none of us knew until quite recently that you have to register your legally purchased gun you brought with you from another state, which you transported in a locked box pursuant to CA law, within 30 days of moving to CA. Now, if one of my nephews had taken her into his home, and the nephew started dealing small quantities of pot, and the cops raided the house, either my mom or my nephew or both could have been convicted of both possession with intent and a gun crime.

                Maybe that sounds unlikely, but I've known DEA agents. It's not the least bit unlikely, if somebody needs a bust to get a promotion.
                "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                Comment

                • Celeste Chalfonte
                  apostate
                  • Saturday, October 5, 2013
                  • 27897

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                  I keep hearing that guns don't kill people. And I'm pretty sure it's generally acknowledged by gun people that merely possessing or carrying a firearm is not a violent act.
                  Merely possessing one, no. By statute in most jurisdictions, carrying one while committing another crime is a felony, I believe. Carrying one concealed without a permit in a state that requires a permit is already a crime. Add on a risky business like illegal recreational pharmaceutical retailing, and you've got a major felony. See how that works?

                  Of course, retail distribution of recreational pharmaceuticals wouldn't be such a risky business if our insane drug policy were changed. And I'm pretty sure that a store owner can have a gun for self-defense even if s/he sells legal recreational drugs (i.e., alcohol and tobacco). So yeah, there's a lot that could be fixed pretty easily, but right now, we're talking about what is, not what could be.
                  "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                  Comment

                  • Norm dePlume
                    Err foil
                    • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                    • 14904

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                    My immediate reaction to that is about what you'd expect. I would, however, like to know more about the offenses, the offenders and the state in which they occurred. California's firearms laws are so Byzantine that a truly non-violent drug offender could be charged and convicted of a gun offense and have never committed an act most of us would consider a crime.

                    For example, it's illegal to possess an unregistered gun in your own home in CA. If we had succeeded in moving my mom out here, odds are she would have committed a gun violation, because none of us knew until quite recently that you have to register your legally purchased gun you brought with you from another state, which you transported in a locked box pursuant to CA law, within 30 days of moving to CA. Now, if one of my nephews had taken her into his home, and the nephew started dealing small quantities of pot, and the cops raided the house, either my mom or my nephew or both could have been convicted of both possession with intent and a gun crime.

                    Maybe that sounds unlikely, but I've known DEA agents. It's not the least bit unlikely, if somebody needs a bust to get a promotion.
                    There is a list here. You can do a CTRL-F find-in-page search for the term "firearm" and just "next" your way down the list. Here is what I'm seeing:

                    use of a firearm during drug trafficking crime (two counts)
                    possession of a firearm and ammunition by convicted a felon
                    carrying a firearm during drug trafficking
                    felon in possession of firearm
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    carrying
                    possession
                    possession
                    Use and carry (that one was commuted to 30 years)
                    possession
                    possession
                    carrying
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime (commuted to 21 years)
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    using or carrying (commuted to 20 years)
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    interstate transportation of a firearm by a felon
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    possession
                    did knowingly use and carry a firearm (commuted to 24 years)
                    possession
                    knowingly using and carrying a firearm (commuted to 10 years)
                    posession
                    use of a firearm (commuted to 18 years)


                    ...and so on. That's roughly halfway through the list.
                    Enjoy.

                    Comment

                    • Adam
                      The way to a woman's heart is through her taste buds.
                      • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                      • 16885

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                      My immediate reaction to that is about what you'd expect. I would, however, like to know more about the offenses, the offenders and the state in which they occurred. California's firearms laws are so Byzantine that a truly non-violent drug offender could be charged and convicted of a gun offense and have never committed an act most of us would consider a crime.

                      For example, it's illegal to possess an unregistered gun in your own home in CA. If we had succeeded in moving my mom out here, odds are she would have committed a gun violation, because none of us knew until quite recently that you have to register your legally purchased gun you brought with you from another state, which you transported in a locked box pursuant to CA law, within 30 days of moving to CA. Now, if one of my nephews had taken her into his home, and the nephew started dealing small quantities of pot, and the cops raided the house, either my mom or my nephew or both could have been convicted of both possession with intent and a gun crime.

                      Maybe that sounds unlikely, but I've known DEA agents. It's not the least bit unlikely, if somebody needs a bust to get a promotion.
                      Moot. The President cannot pardon for state offenses. These were all federal crimes.
                      It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
                      In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
                      Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
                      Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

                      Comment

                      • Norm dePlume
                        Err foil
                        • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                        • 14904

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                        Merely possessing one, no. By statute in most jurisdictions, carrying one while committing another crime is a felony, I believe. Carrying one concealed without a permit in a state that requires a permit is already a crime. Add on a risky business like illegal recreational pharmaceutical retailing, and you've got a major felony. See how that works?

                        Of course, retail distribution of recreational pharmaceuticals wouldn't be such a risky business if our insane drug policy were changed. And I'm pretty sure that a store owner can have a gun for self-defense even if s/he sells legal recreational drugs (i.e., alcohol and tobacco). So yeah, there's a lot that could be fixed pretty easily, but right now, we're talking about what is, not what could be.
                        Felonius and violent are two different things (albeit with a lot of overlap). I think most people would agree that if you ran a red light and got pulled over, you haven't done anything violent. And you haven't committed a felony.

                        If you ran a red light and got pulled over and have a handgun in the glove compartment, still not violent, still not a felony.
                        If you ran a red light and got pulled over and have a handgun and a brick of meth in the glove compartment, you're in felony territory, but did you become violent?
                        Enjoy.

                        Comment

                        • Celeste Chalfonte
                          apostate
                          • Saturday, October 5, 2013
                          • 27897

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Adam View Post
                          Moot. The President cannot pardon for state offenses. These were all federal crimes.
                          My bad, of course you're correct. Still, if Norm's list above is accurate, a fair number of these could have been merely for someone in the house having a firearm in the house while that someone or someone else possessed enough weed for an intent to distribute charge.

                          Did I mention sweating my State Bar character investigation (many years ago) because one of my roommates had been using the landline that was in my name to sell drugs the whole time he lived with us? Suppose I had quite legally owned a gun, and the feds had decided he was worth busting at home?
                          "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                          Comment

                          • Celeste Chalfonte
                            apostate
                            • Saturday, October 5, 2013
                            • 27897

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                            Felonius and violent are two different things (albeit with a lot of overlap). I think most people would agree that if you ran a red light and got pulled over, you haven't done anything violent. And you haven't committed a felony.

                            If you ran a red light and got pulled over and have a handgun in the glove compartment, still not violent, still not a felony.
                            If you ran a red light and got pulled over and have a handgun and a brick of meth in the glove compartment, you're in felony territory, but did you become violent?
                            It's theoretically possible that the person in the last scenario is not violent, but it's rather like a person breaking into my home who turns out to have been unarmed. I can logically and legally assume that someone who enters my home by force (breaking and entering) does so with felonious intent and means me harm. If a cop stops someone with a brick of meth and the means to shoot a cop or a rival right there in the glove box, and especially if the person is not legally entitled to carry concealed, I believe the assumption that this is a violent felon is justified, yes.
                            "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                            Comment

                            • Norm dePlume
                              Err foil
                              • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                              • 14904

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                              It's theoretically possible that the person in the last scenario is not violent, but it's rather like a person breaking into my home who turns out to have been unarmed. I can logically and legally assume that someone who enters my home by force (breaking and entering) does so with felonious intent and means me harm. If a cop stops someone with a brick of meth and the means to shoot a cop or a rival right there in the glove box, and especially if the person is not legally entitled to carry concealed, I believe the assumption that this is a violent felon is justified, yes.
                              Granted, he could well be violent in certain situations, but my point is that, while he will be charged with possession of a weapon in the commission of a felony, that is different than being charged with a violent crime.
                              Enjoy.

                              Comment

                              Working...