Posted on 11/18/2018 6:49:56 AM PST by Kaslin
The FIRST STEP Act is the beginning of a transformation of America’s federal criminal-justice system into what it should have always been: a system that makes America safer. This legislation unites conservatives, police and civil rights advocates, civil libertarians, business leaders and supporters of social justice. Supporting this legislation means supporting ideas that all Americans want - from police to Democrats to Republicans - an America that is fair, an America that puts Americans first, and that makes America safe.
The fact that law enforcement groups like the Fraternal Order of Police and The International Association of Chiefs of Police support this legislation indicates this is nothing of what critics’ claim. In fact, it is a conservative issue whose time has come at the federal level. I have battled with many of my friends about what criminal justice reform is and what it is not.
As conservatives, we should ensure that the punishment fits the crime. Our judicial system should not be one size fits all. Yet, an adherence to rigid mandatory minimum laws means that federal judges too often must impose a sentence that cannot be adjusted based the specific facts of the case. This is not a conservative position.
It is also not a conservative position to put faith in a bureaucratic system like the Bureau of Prisons as a tower of virtue. We know what bureaucracies do, primarily spend too much money with a lot of overhead and no real solutions to problems. A prison population that is overwhelmed with low-level crimes like selling an elephant tusk on the internet or throwing three fish back that is in violation of a fishing license is absurd.
Or take Weldon Angelos, a man who was sentenced to 55 years in federal prison because he sold marijuana while possessing an otherwise legal firearm, even though he never used the gun. The judge in this case had no choice but to impose an absurd sentence for a low-level drug offense.
Even as we feel a moral command to ensure our criminal justice system reflects our values, it is important to remember that the First Step Act is not an article of faith, but based on proven results in states across the country. Indeed, it is red states most of all like Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina that have proven we can both cut crime and incarceration at the same time.
Part of these states’ recipe for success was expanding proven rehabilitation programs, including those with a faith component, which has been excluded from the federal component. I have many friends and colleagues who have been in prison ministries that see results, whether it is through education or helping prisoners turn their lives around, the empathy we show the less fortunate is a mandate by God, to do justice, but to love mercy.
This legislation provides a way for prisoners to reenter society and become productive citizens again, through education and job programs that get them back on the right track. Ninety-five percent of prisoners who enter federal prison will one day get out. Why would we not do what we can as a society to make sure they are connected with their families, that they are connected to jobs that will prevent
The First Step Act invests $250 million over the next decade in such programs, but research suggests by reducing recidivism we will obtain a strong return on this investment.
This legislation is a win for the American people, but it is also a win for this President. Not only would he be transforming the lives of millions of Americans, he would be achieving something his predecessor only gave lip service to. Even when he had complete control of Congress, Barack Obama didn’t even try to move legislation that would impact the African-American community most notably.
I see the leadership of this President, a man who has not forgotten about people in prison, the little guy, the disenfranchised that the Left always says they are looking out for, as leadership for all Americans.
This is a law and order President who believes in justice and the First Step Act will get us closer to true justice. It is surprising that supporters of President Trump would not see how significant and important this would be for the President and the country. It would show he can work across the aisle leading with conservative principles as he has for the past 2 years.
It's time to get it done!
Does the plan make the ex cons pull their pants up when they go in for an interview? Obviously little can be done about the gang tattoos covering their necks.
A good First Step would be to protect the unborn, but that hasn’t happened. instead, we get ‘prison reform’, meaningless unless it means helping felons get out of prison and cause mayhem in our neighborhoods, but they have to compete with the illegals for crime and voting rights now.
If you can’t take the rape, don’t pull the jape.
Exactly correct. "Minimum sentences" are like "zero tolerance" policies: they eliminate common sense and critical thinking from the decision making process and that is what's hurting this country the most in every single respect.
I have no idea of the FIRST STEP Act is a good law or a bad one. I really don't give a sh!t, in fact. Criminal justice reform doesn't even show up on a list of the 50 most important issues facing anyone I know. In fact, I've never even heard this raised as a matter of concern by anyone other than political figures representing unemployable misfits.
As conservatives, we should be pushing to eliminate at least 95% of the things that are considered "Federal crimes" these days.
Why would a group like the International Association of Chiefs of Police give a damn about Federal sentencing reform? They're not in a position of enforcing Federal law in the first place. Their concerns are only relevant in dealing with state criminal statutes.
Its cuts both ways. For every person incarcerated for an extended period of time due to mandatory minimums, there are those who get off free from some liberal judge.
That's the reason mandatory minimums were initiated in the first place.
I think this should be handled at the applet level. To just give judges total opinionated authority in sentencing is a bad idea and gives them even more power than their big heads already have.
Minimum sentences are there because we haven't got consistent judges. Some are way too lenient, and some take bribes.
Zero tolerance for law breakers is common sense, except when we have way too many nit-picky laws, and incarceration as the only punishment.
These things don't eliminate common sense, they are there because judges and lawmakers (in general) have no common sense.
A quick caning is more instructive and less wasteful of life than 6 months in jail. But that common sense has been discarded.
The problem is on the lawmakers side. Change the law. But never ever declare that some laws can be broken with impunity, or all laws become suspect.
“Even as we feel a moral command to ensure our criminal justice system reflects our values, it is important to remember that the First Step Act is not an article of faith, but based on proven results in states across the country. Indeed, it is red states most of all like Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina that have proven we can both cut crime and incarceration at the same time.”
——
I am on the front lines of the past three years of GA’s justice reform efforts and I can say with first hand knowledge and experience that it is NOT working. In fact, it is so bad that you have to take your FOIA to court before they will let you see how bad the numbers on recidivism and new convictions are getting. Luckily, our new Governor is going to put a stop to much of it (Kemp).
This author is peddling absolute bullshit.
1. For several years, petitioner, a 24-year-old, traf ficked in large quantities of high-grade marijuana. He also distributed cocaine and other narcotics. During that time, petitioner affiliated himself with Varrio Loco Town (VLT), a violent street gang. Consistent with his gang affiliation and participation in the drug trade, peti tioner repeatedly armed himself with firearms. Gov't C.A. Br. 4.
a. In April 2002, Ronnie Lazalde began working as a confidential informant for the Salt Lake City Metro Gang Unit, a joint state and federal drug task force. Jason Mazuran, a gang unit detective, learned from sev eral of his informants that petitioner had distributed large quantities of drugs over an extended period of time. Because Lazalde was a member of the same gang as petitioner, Mazuran believed that Lazalde was well- positioned to purchase drugs from petitioner. Gov't C.A. Br. 4-5.
On May 10, 2002, Lazalde met with petitioner at Mazuran's directive. During the meeting, petitioner discussed his drug dealing operation and showed Lazalde a 10-millimeter Glock pistol that he carried in an ankle holster. Petitioner told Lazalde that he had a supplier in California who could provide large quantities of marijuana and cocaine. Thereafter, Lazalde arranged to purchase marijuana from petitioner. On May 21, June 4, and June 18, 2002, Lazalde made three controlled pur chases of approximately one-half of a pound of mari juana from petitioner, amounts that Mazuran had dic tated, even though petitioner normally sold much larger quantities. The controlled buys occurred in a store parking lot that was close to petitioner's residence on Fort Union Boulevard. Gov't C.A. Br. 5-6.
Petitioner displayed firearms during two of the transactions. At the May 21, 2002, transaction, Lazalde entered petitioner's black BMW and observed lodged between the seat and the center console the same 10- millimeter Glock pistol that petitioner had shown him at their May 10, 2002, meeting. Lazalde suspected that petitioner may have deliberately positioned the gun in that location to intimidate him (Lazalde) and prevent him from attempting to rob petitioner. At the June 4, 2002, transaction, petitioner was carrying the Glock pis tol in an ankle holster. As Lazalde approached peti tioner to complete the transaction, petitioner lifted his pant leg and displayed the gun to Lazalde. During sub sequent debriefings, Lazalde told Mazuran that peti tioner had carried a firearm to both buys and that, dur ing the second buy, petitioner had brandished the gun. Gov't C.A. Br. 5-6.
b. On July 11, 2002, police officers arrested peti tioner during an unrelated incident at an apartment complex. At the time of his arrest, petitioner was carry ing a stolen 10-millimeter Glock pistol, loaded with 13 hollow point rounds, in a holster on his ankle, and more than $4300 in cash in his pocket. Petitioner later ad vised Lazalde of his arrest, and Lazalde immediately reported those facts to Mazuran. Gov't C.A. Br. 6.
c. On November 13, 2002, a federal grand jury in the District of Utah returned a five-count indictment ag- ainst petitioner charging him with three counts of dis- tributing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug traf ficking crime, or possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c); and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial num ber, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(k). Pet. App. 4.
d. Two days after his indictment, Mazuran served an arrest warrant on petitioner at his apartment. During a subsequent search, Mazuran recovered more than three pounds of marijuana in a bedroom closet and two bulletproof vests. Mazuran also found a briefcase with more than $22,000 in United States currency, as well as documentation of monies owed to petitioner by other drug dealers (pay/owe sheets), and a fully loaded Glock 17 pistol. Mazuran also seized a safe from the apart ment, and a subsequent search of the safe uncovered two other loaded pistols, a large number of prescription pain pills for which petitioner had no prescription, opiate suckers, and more pay/owe sheets. One of the pistols, a Walther, that was found in the safe had been stolen from a third party. Agents also found a new Lexus sedan parked in the garage, which was later determined to have been purchased with more than $30,000 in drug proceeds. Gov't C.A. Br. 7; Pet. App. 4.
e. On December 16, 2002, federal agents assigned to the Task Force obtained a search warrant for petition- er's other residence on Fort Union Boulevard, which led to the discovery of the black BMW used in two of the controlled buys with Lazalde. The trunk of the vehicle contained a pound of marijuana and a Smith and Wesson revolver. A search of the residence itself led to the dis covery of a safe in the master bedroom that contained $20,000 in cash and smelled of marijuana. Scales and drug packaging materials were found in the kitchen. Still further investigation of the premises led to the dis covery of body armor, an assault rifle, 26 large duffel bags and several large suitcases (each of which was ca pable of holding at least 50 pounds of marijuana) con taining marijuana residue, and more pay/owe sheets. Agents also seized photographs, taken years before the drug distribution charged in the indictment, depicting petitioner displaying firearms while holding large am- ounts of cash and illegal drugs. Gov't C.A. Br. 7-9.
f. On December 17, 2002, the day after the search of petitioner's Fort Union Boulevard residence, petitioner and his lawyer met with investigators. During that meeting, one of the purposes of which was to decide whether petitioner was willing to cooperate with author ities, petitioner admitted that he had been dealing mari juana and cocaine, and that he was able to obtain large quantities of any substance. No agreement was reached, however, because the agents suspected that petitioner had not been truthful about the source of his supply. Gov't C.A. Br. 11.
Thank you Ken Blackwell...I can’t say the same for some of the immature retorts here. This should be passed as it stands. Also folks should check out Candace Owens’ Tweets...she really hammers the black caucus losers...none of which likely even read the bill...
I wonder what Jared thinks of this?
People need to remember that. If it was easier to get rid of the abusive rogue judges (like, three felonies by a perp they arbitrarily released and they are out), I'd be all in favor of repealing mandatory minimums.
Or calling them guidelines. You don't have to follow the guideline, but if your "slap on the wrist" perp gets convicted of another felony, your judgeship is suspended. It gets suspended longer the second time and becomes permanent the third time.
If you think your judgement is so wise, then we'll test it.
I had no idea you could pull up federal legal briefs at Justice.gov.
Here is the link to the Weldon Angelos case:
https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/angelos-v-united-states-opposition
I found one more important fact about this case that the “Common Sense Reformers” have not mentioned...
“On January 20, 2003, the government offered petitioner [Weldon Angelos] an opportunity to plead guilty to two counts of the initial indictment, with an agreed recommendation of 192 months [16 years] of imprisonment.”
Angelos rejected the plea, and went to trial, where he was convicted on SIXTEEN felony charges.
One last thought - does anyone know if this guy was an illegal immigrant?
He spends all his time trying to get the Israelis to surrender to a different group of felons - Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.