Liberals constantly scream for "sentencing reform" because it incarcerates young black men, that they committed crimes matters not. Post "sentencing reform" they will be attacking law enforcement for not keeping us safe from those released from "sentencing reform" wash, rinse, repeat.
3
Why on this Earth would we want to prosecute someone who did not consciously intend to do the act that is considered criminal?
I even thought this was a Constitutional prerequisite.
We don't prosecute illegal aliens who evade our immigration laws, don't pay taxes, drive without licenses, and sometimes vote, yet you want people prosecuted who did not even know they were doing something --the equivalent of an accident?
I even thought this was a Constitutional prerequisite.
We don't prosecute illegal aliens who evade our immigration laws, don't pay taxes, drive without licenses, and sometimes vote, yet you want people prosecuted who did not even know they were doing something --the equivalent of an accident?
2
It's 11:30 am, EST and 60 comments have been posted on this issue. That tells you all you need to know about how very little most Americans care. And, unlike so many other issues that captivate our attention like global warming, ISIS and the Zika virus, this issue could be so easily solved. But Republicans in the Congress never miss an opportunity to join forces with the usual suspects and disappoint their constituents.
Republicans like to make much of America's perceived loss of influence in the world. But that perception is rooted most deeply not in our military posture but in our blindingly obvious inability to solve problems for which there are solutions. And it's not just our crumbling, racist criminal justice system. How about our crumbling infrastructure, education system and the constant GOP threats to roll back the ACA and return to the glorious days of medical service delivery via the Emergency Room. Yes, it's time to take our country back!
Republicans like to make much of America's perceived loss of influence in the world. But that perception is rooted most deeply not in our military posture but in our blindingly obvious inability to solve problems for which there are solutions. And it's not just our crumbling, racist criminal justice system. How about our crumbling infrastructure, education system and the constant GOP threats to roll back the ACA and return to the glorious days of medical service delivery via the Emergency Room. Yes, it's time to take our country back!
5
I'd ask commentators to think back through their own history, and list the number of things they've done that would've landed them in the slammer if they'd only got caught, or if dad hadn't gotten them off the hook, or if they'd not gotten some sort of break from the legal system.
Introducing "mens rea" criteria to be applied to corporate crime only provides yet another shield to whatever nefarious activities they might engage in.
Imagine applying notions of demonstrable criminal intent against an entity that is by its legal nature an amalgamation of boards and administrative convulsion. It would often be extremely difficult for prosecution to put that together and show criminal intent in the minds of a corporation.
A corporation by its very design often can avoid the issue of individual liability and needs no further protection than it already has.
Some suggest using the racketeering RICO laws against these corporations but I think if we study those laws, we see certain linear chain of event requirements that become difficult hurdles for prosecutors. Apparently that is why the law is underutilized and requires some important changes that will never occur under Republican administration.
For a corporation to "know" that it is breaking the law is more than a little different than showing criminal intent in an individual simply because in a corporation the left hand does not know or may claim it is unaware of what the right hand does. THAT's the rub and the way the corporation shifts blame & criminal intent aside
As it is, "mens rea" in criminal law is a highly speculative and abstract post hoc procedure where a great deal of inference is involved. The requisite mental status of criminal intent is often derived from acts and actions of individuals.
Imagine applying notions of demonstrable criminal intent against an entity that is by its legal nature an amalgamation of boards and administrative convulsion. It would often be extremely difficult for prosecution to put that together and show criminal intent in the minds of a corporation.
A corporation by its very design often can avoid the issue of individual liability and needs no further protection than it already has.
Some suggest using the racketeering RICO laws against these corporations but I think if we study those laws, we see certain linear chain of event requirements that become difficult hurdles for prosecutors. Apparently that is why the law is underutilized and requires some important changes that will never occur under Republican administration.
For a corporation to "know" that it is breaking the law is more than a little different than showing criminal intent in an individual simply because in a corporation the left hand does not know or may claim it is unaware of what the right hand does. THAT's the rub and the way the corporation shifts blame & criminal intent aside
As it is, "mens rea" in criminal law is a highly speculative and abstract post hoc procedure where a great deal of inference is involved. The requisite mental status of criminal intent is often derived from acts and actions of individuals.
1
The correct term for federal prisoners is"First time felony drug offender." A felony is a serious offense that could result in a prison sentence. A low-level drug offender if incarcerated at all would be held in a jail.
There have been numerous studies of inmates released from prison where their criminal records have been reviewed. What was found is that drug offenders are a mixture of violent and nonviolent offenders and a substantial fraction are known or suspected gang members.
On 12/26/2015 there were 86,080 (46.5% of all inmates) federal prison inmates where the most serious charge was a drug offense (including possession, trafficking and other drug offense subtypes).
It is a half-truth to say that they were all "low-level nonviolent drug offenders".
There have been numerous studies of inmates released from prison where their criminal records have been reviewed. What was found is that drug offenders are a mixture of violent and nonviolent offenders and a substantial fraction are known or suspected gang members.
On 12/26/2015 there were 86,080 (46.5% of all inmates) federal prison inmates where the most serious charge was a drug offense (including possession, trafficking and other drug offense subtypes).
It is a half-truth to say that they were all "low-level nonviolent drug offenders".
2
1. The legal system of our nation presumes the innocence of the accused until, in a criminal matter, beyond reasonable doubt. Elizabeth Warren's identification of illegal corporate actions never resulted in even an indictment, let alone a conviction. Which, course, makes her accusation about as useful as trying to shovel snow with a piece of fresh pasta.
2. The rush to incarcerate people was not a four-decade excursion, it was a one-decade excursion. The blame for the over incarceration sits with the "triangulation" of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, to gain political capital by meeting the call of The People for getting criminal off the street. Note that easing the incarceration rates doesn't take the criminals off the streets and has the effect of allowing them the freedom to continue to commit crimes against the law-abiding.
Once again, the Editorial Board takes the narrowest view to pander to the elite who would never find themselves in a position to deal with the crimes on a day-to-day basis. Typical liberal...er...prorgressive...er...what ever they are calling themselves these days to evade having to accept responsibility for the failures of their previous policies...out-of-touch musings by the esteemed Editorial Board of the NY Times.
2. The rush to incarcerate people was not a four-decade excursion, it was a one-decade excursion. The blame for the over incarceration sits with the "triangulation" of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, to gain political capital by meeting the call of The People for getting criminal off the street. Note that easing the incarceration rates doesn't take the criminals off the streets and has the effect of allowing them the freedom to continue to commit crimes against the law-abiding.
Once again, the Editorial Board takes the narrowest view to pander to the elite who would never find themselves in a position to deal with the crimes on a day-to-day basis. Typical liberal...er...prorgressive...er...what ever they are calling themselves these days to evade having to accept responsibility for the failures of their previous policies...out-of-touch musings by the esteemed Editorial Board of the NY Times.
4
The GOP and big time Republican donors like the Kochs were NEVER serious about sentencing reform for regular humans It was always a smoke screen for protecting corporate executives. Anyone who didn't see that would have to be blind or just dying for that Koch money themselves. People like the Kochs don't do anything unless it benefits their interests. When are liberals and others going to stop canonizing these people and or making excuses for taking their $$$$ and get real.
1
Another example of how Senator Cruz flip flops when expedient. Seeing him with a background of Trust is a real oxymoron.
1
Leave it to that hate monger Cruz to turn tail and run from any legislation which might paint this demagogue as anything less than a shoot first, ask questions later hard right conservative who probably views Devils Island as a minimum security facility.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
2
In the WSJ and now here the only offered example of a bad law is a leash law that doesn't accommodate European standard leashes. The proposed broad revision of federal laws should be discussed in terms of federal felony prosecutions, which is what are at stake.
1
The amendment here that protects corporations from Financial and environmental prosecutions does NOT belong attached to the best chance we ever had to stop incarcerating and terrorizing non-violent American citizens for simple possessions of marijuana, which is the leading cause of our horrific and embarrassing over-crowded prison populations. The spineless defense lawyers who added this amendment to protect corporations need to be prosecuted, and Cruz needs to flush his head down the toilet for holding up Sentencing Reform. He dared to even write my fellow Texans stating he once proudly supported this reform, and now this? THIS is "presidential leadership?!"
It is clear that the CDC is working against us, or they would have used pesticide on Congress and quarantined Cruz a long time ago.
It is clear that the CDC is working against us, or they would have used pesticide on Congress and quarantined Cruz a long time ago.
Obama’s Lofty Plans on Gun Violence Amount to Little Action?
See: 4th Circuit judges who handed a lower court, the Mass. legislature and governor their hats in Kolbe vs. Hogan. Still waiting for the truth in the NYT.
See: 4th Circuit judges who handed a lower court, the Mass. legislature and governor their hats in Kolbe vs. Hogan. Still waiting for the truth in the NYT.
2
More evidence that right wing GOP have sworn the Koch oath not to do anything that would cost the fossil fuel industry money. The corporations are already hard to prosecute with few ever serving jail time.
The right wing GOP, in its skewed vision, refuses to see this is a free pass to corporations to ignore environmental need and bankster tricks that game the system.
Doing what is best is not the standards test for these right wing nuts. They continue to show that their end game is a corporate fascist government system where there are no rights for people and no regulations for corporations. Wake up, America.
The right wing GOP, in its skewed vision, refuses to see this is a free pass to corporations to ignore environmental need and bankster tricks that game the system.
Doing what is best is not the standards test for these right wing nuts. They continue to show that their end game is a corporate fascist government system where there are no rights for people and no regulations for corporations. Wake up, America.
3
Please call these "congressional Republicans" out. Who are they?
1
" some congressional Republicans now say they will approve the bill (Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015), only if it includes an across-the-board change in federal law that would make corporations and their executives harder to prosecute..."
Which congressional Republicans are we speaking of? Let's name names. It is time for the average citizen in these Republican districts to understand just who their elected representatives actually represent.
Which congressional Republicans are we speaking of? Let's name names. It is time for the average citizen in these Republican districts to understand just who their elected representatives actually represent.
4
Absent our draconian drug laws, little of this effort to reform and rewrite current law would be necessary. Let us look to the source of this massive incarceration: our overwrought reaction is the existence of the D.E.A. Today’s great divide comes from a shallowness of understanding.
The holdup,of course, is that the corporate and banking lobbies have control of the key legislators.
1
I don't buy the argument posited by some commentators that the language proposed in harmless. Corporate lobbyists don't propose language for legislation that is political fluff, that is the job of pandering presidential candidates. We have to assume that corporate interests are working for their own benefit and that such language is part of an immediate goal or the foundation for future benefits. The fact that the Koch brothers, those famous libertarians, would be in favor of this rider gives me pause. Sadly, those who lack the political clout of near limitless funds to expend on lobbyists, will either languish in prison or be subjected to future prison sentences in the one size fits all sentencing scheme of mandatory prison sentences.
2
Ironic, that the Times would endorse Hillary Clinton - a drug warrior and hard-on-crime fan of imprisoning "super predators", supporter of three-strikes laws, and a recipient of donations from private, for-profit prisons ...
... and then author an editorial on the need to undo everything Hillary Clinton has stood for in this context.
... and then author an editorial on the need to undo everything Hillary Clinton has stood for in this context.
4
Senator Cruz did not change his mind on sentencing reform, he is pandering to the right wing to get elected. Why doesn't the NYT Editorial Board call a spade a spade? They do a disservice to the American people when then are so wishy-washee and don't hold the politicians to account for their dishonesty and pandering.
1
The changes proposed by Republican lawmakers to weaken the ability to prosecute corporate criminals for environmental or financial crimes is one of the top items on the Koch brothers' wish list. They have been pushing "criminal justice reform" to soften their image and tout their "true libertarian" bona fides for a number of years now; however, when it comes time to craft actual legislation, the politicians they fund strangely seem to focus on leniency for white collar criminals. Let's not forget that Koch companies have racked up more environmental fines than any other corporations in the U.S. They have proven time and again that they have no problem risking the health of their fellow citizens (i.e. all of us) in order to add to their billions There's a reason they fund Republican politicians; they want their interests protected. If our interests as general citizens aren't the same as theirs, well, as shown by this piece of legislation the Republicans are trying to alter, too bad us.
3
A Nation "of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation."
1
The Republicans are obsessed with cutting costs and making the Government spend less and reducing the U.S Deficit.
If only for these reasons alone one would think Republicans would vote for this legislation reducing the vast population of Prisoners in Federal Jails and therefore reducing costs hugely.
One would think.
I suspect that we expect too much from them.
If only for these reasons alone one would think Republicans would vote for this legislation reducing the vast population of Prisoners in Federal Jails and therefore reducing costs hugely.
One would think.
I suspect that we expect too much from them.
Why do we allow members of Congress to be bought by big business owners?
Simple.
It seems Government regulation is OK when it favors Capitalists.
That is to say, criminal intent standards should not be a roadblock between a crook and raking in money.
Simple.
It seems Government regulation is OK when it favors Capitalists.
That is to say, criminal intent standards should not be a roadblock between a crook and raking in money.
1
What what the New York Times has labeled as "scare mongering" has actually been proven true time and time again. We have criminals reoffending at alarming rates. A man raped a girl in a restaurant last year. It turned out he was a sex offemder with a long rap sheet. A guy broke into a house and fired a gun at its owner - he had been arrested five times for similar crimes. I could go on and on. A man crashed his car, on his NINTH DWI.
.
These things aren't happening in the doorman buildings and carefully gentrified neighborhood's where most of the New York Times Editorial board lives, so they are easy to ignore. I don't know if they even talk to people in neighborhood's suffering from spikes of crime. I suspect New York Times editorial writers have dinner parties with their friends instead. They'll invite a prominent defense attorney and a university criminology professor. "Crime rates are down," says their professor friend. "The courts and laws are unfair," says the lawyer. And then they write their editorial. It's not good journalism.
.
These things aren't happening in the doorman buildings and carefully gentrified neighborhood's where most of the New York Times Editorial board lives, so they are easy to ignore. I don't know if they even talk to people in neighborhood's suffering from spikes of crime. I suspect New York Times editorial writers have dinner parties with their friends instead. They'll invite a prominent defense attorney and a university criminology professor. "Crime rates are down," says their professor friend. "The courts and laws are unfair," says the lawyer. And then they write their editorial. It's not good journalism.
2
A driver can be found guilty and fined or imprisoned for drunk driving by showing that the driver had a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit while driving a motor vehicle on a public road. No proof of intent is require. A driver whose judgement and coordination have been impaired by alcohol presents an unacceptable hazard to pedestrians, other drivers and passengers by driving on our public roads. Proof that the driver knew that her judgment and intent had been impaired but nevertheless chose to drive would make it impossible to convict a driver who was so impaired by alcohol that she was unable to understand that her drinking had impaired her judgment.
Corporations are a lot like cars. They are big and powerful. They can run over people and destroy property. They are operated by CEO's and managers just as motor vehicles are operated by drivers. When a CEO or manager controls a corporation under the influence of greed, his judgment is impaired. He cannot objectively evaluate the effect of his actions. Requiring proof that he could objectively evaluate the effect of his actions would enable the CEO or manager to use greed and ignorance as a defense.
That's just not an acceptable hazard.
Corporations are a lot like cars. They are big and powerful. They can run over people and destroy property. They are operated by CEO's and managers just as motor vehicles are operated by drivers. When a CEO or manager controls a corporation under the influence of greed, his judgment is impaired. He cannot objectively evaluate the effect of his actions. Requiring proof that he could objectively evaluate the effect of his actions would enable the CEO or manager to use greed and ignorance as a defense.
That's just not an acceptable hazard.
2
I agree that the sentencing bill should be separated from that requiring "mens rea." However, I cannot agree with your deprecation of the mens rea bill--("a mix of some congressional Republicans, corporate interests and defense lawyers") The Department of Justice prefers to keep a confusing set of rules which frequently send people to prison without any showing of subjective culpability, such as intent, knowledge or recklessness. The Department of Justice likes the current rules simply because it is easier to convict people. And by "people" I am am referring to the thousands of people caught up in our drug laws, not the corporate executives who will make themselves difficult to convict and are not convicted anyway.
The proposed mens rea bill would only adopt a rule evolved over the history of English and American Common Law and applied in most states. It would limit the current federal practice of reading Congressional silence on the requirement of a mental state in a criminal statute to impose absolute liability and would require that there be proof of some sort of subjective culpability.
The proposed mens rea bill would only adopt a rule evolved over the history of English and American Common Law and applied in most states. It would limit the current federal practice of reading Congressional silence on the requirement of a mental state in a criminal statute to impose absolute liability and would require that there be proof of some sort of subjective culpability.
So typical. Once again the Reps never miss an opportunity to try and see to it that corporations can poison us and the environment and never have to pay a price for doing so. I just wish the voters would cease to be such willing dupes for these corporate lackeys.
2
Making corporations and their executives harder to prosecute is fascism, pure and simple. Those congresspeople who would support such an inclusion in the crime bill are themselves corrupt corporate tools, and, in no way, representative of the citizens of this country. Shame. "Mens re" is an attempt to obfuscate.
The NYT is doing a disservice to its readers by failing to name the senators pushing this provision. Is it Rubio? If so, make that clear. The "Editorial Board" has masked itself sufficiently, so why not uphold the Fourth Estates' principles and put "truth to power"?
The NYT is doing a disservice to its readers by failing to name the senators pushing this provision. Is it Rubio? If so, make that clear. The "Editorial Board" has masked itself sufficiently, so why not uphold the Fourth Estates' principles and put "truth to power"?
1
I'm in far more danger of being injured financially, even physically, by some huge corporation run by unscrupulous, sociopathic businessmen than by any street thug. Injured by businessmen who believe they are above the law like President Nixon famously proclaimed in an unguarded moment of candor that laid his hubris bare, thanks to their wealth and power.
Nor are they wrong. Our legal system shields and coddles them. That same system betrays the interests of those far less wealthy who cannot buy access. Priced out, because our legislators demand and take bribes disguised as other forms of consideration. $200,000 speaking fees, an example. Massive bundled campaign contributions made in total secrecy to superPACs, another. Lucrative blind-trust private investments, another. Post-retirement jobs at think-tanks and lobbying firms; many no-show. Sweetheart business deals of all kinds. Even a single fabulously profitable commodities trade (cattle) comes to mind.
The gravy train. "Those who have (the power) get (the goods)", with promises of more to come. So, in "quiet rooms" (borrowing a Mitt Romneyism) the powerful meet in secret to write laws that favor their benefactors and themselves while ignoring the Greater Good that once embodied hope in a refuge from tyranny called "America". Those not similarly favored languish, their lives blighted by neglect; held hostage; their interests reduced to mere chits on a bargaining table to be traded, cash-$-carry, in some future deal.
Nor are they wrong. Our legal system shields and coddles them. That same system betrays the interests of those far less wealthy who cannot buy access. Priced out, because our legislators demand and take bribes disguised as other forms of consideration. $200,000 speaking fees, an example. Massive bundled campaign contributions made in total secrecy to superPACs, another. Lucrative blind-trust private investments, another. Post-retirement jobs at think-tanks and lobbying firms; many no-show. Sweetheart business deals of all kinds. Even a single fabulously profitable commodities trade (cattle) comes to mind.
The gravy train. "Those who have (the power) get (the goods)", with promises of more to come. So, in "quiet rooms" (borrowing a Mitt Romneyism) the powerful meet in secret to write laws that favor their benefactors and themselves while ignoring the Greater Good that once embodied hope in a refuge from tyranny called "America". Those not similarly favored languish, their lives blighted by neglect; held hostage; their interests reduced to mere chits on a bargaining table to be traded, cash-$-carry, in some future deal.
1
Sentencing reform of the kind envisioned will reduce the total number of people incarcerated, but not by the margins it supposes. Crime is at an all time low - what it was in the early sixties. Rolling back on mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders will reduce the length of the sentences imposed on drug dealers, but it won't stem their flow into the local jail and house of correction, state prison or federal penitentiary as they are immediately replaced when taken off the streets. Essentially we have become a more punitive society by doubling the sentences for violent offenders as well. Therefore, reducing the sentences and the sentencing of non-violent offenders will little change the carcel state we now find ourselves in.
Freeing the forgotten cities from systemic racism and the resultant poverty, reducing economic inequality throughout the country and decriminalizing drugs is the only way to reduce drug demand, the transitory wealth the drug trade provides and the violent chaos inherent to economic deprivation.
Freeing the forgotten cities from systemic racism and the resultant poverty, reducing economic inequality throughout the country and decriminalizing drugs is the only way to reduce drug demand, the transitory wealth the drug trade provides and the violent chaos inherent to economic deprivation.
As valuable criminal justice reform might be it should not be at the expense of prosecuting corporate executives. As it is not enough executives get charged. The result is that rather than jailing the decision makers who get paid millions because of their importance the U.S. is faced with doing nothing or driving an entire company out of business.
1
Not mentioned in this article, but the Koch Bros machine is behind the move to make it harder to prosecute white collar crime. It's the whole readon they support sentencing reform.
"...some congressional Republicans now say they will approve the bill only if it includes an across-the-board change in federal law that would make corporations and their executives harder to prosecute for environmental or financial crimes..."
Little surprise that there are people in Congress so beholden to the lobbyists that they have to give away even more to corporations who have managed to co-opt, overrun or just plain steal pretty much everything there is. Just getting a phone yesterday I had to sign an agreement with an arbitration clause. Now, if they manage to poison our air, water or land, we'll have to arbitrate over that too. Send these congressmen bottled water from Flint!
Little surprise that there are people in Congress so beholden to the lobbyists that they have to give away even more to corporations who have managed to co-opt, overrun or just plain steal pretty much everything there is. Just getting a phone yesterday I had to sign an agreement with an arbitration clause. Now, if they manage to poison our air, water or land, we'll have to arbitrate over that too. Send these congressmen bottled water from Flint!
1
Why not save time with this single line rider: "If you're rich, it's legal!"
It's clear and easy to understand.
It's clear and easy to understand.
1
CONGRESS CATCH UP? You gotta be kidding. The GOP blockade is not budging on anything and everything, simply because it can. Beyond violation of oaths of office, blocking legislation where the GOP can't dictate all the provisions in bills has become the new standard for throwing wooden shoes into the machinery; or sabotage. Substance dependence is a medical condition. So if people are addicted to alcohol, tobacco or caffeine they are entitled to medical treatment and support. With marijuana, now legal or decriminalized in 23 states and DC and counting, long punitive sentences are illogical, not to mention cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of constitutional rights. So why fill up the prisons unnecessarily? Because they're privately owned by people who largely vote for the GOP. Since nature abhors a vacuum, they must be kept at capacity to keep up the quarterly earnings on the stock market. Yes, the invisible hand of Milton Friedman's imaginary free market is imprisoning citizens at an alarming rate. Even Ted Cruz has had to flip fop on this one to campaign on the extreme right. He's so far right that he's gone eastward around the globe until he's at the most westerly point. If only! States have slashed imprisonment rates for nonviolent crimes without a rise in crime rates. So why refuse to pass the bill? That's the GOP again doing their Nancy Reagan thing, Just say no. Hey, Nancy was talking about premarital sex too. Oh right Planned Parenthood's out too!
Simply put—the intention of sentence reform is to rectify the wrongs of a broken incarceration system. We’ve put too many individuals, largely underrepresented, poor and minority, in jail and slapped them with harsh sentences that far exceeded their offenses. Not to mention that close to 98% of these cases were plea bargained.
On the other hand, corporate corruption and corporate wrongdoers, largely overrepresented, wealthy and white, have rarely been sentenced or even penalized. There is no need to reform or reduce sentencing or add catchy Latin phrases—“mens rea”. There is no doubt in my mind that large banks were intent on mortgage fraud. Yet no one was sentenced.
Congress once more will fail to accomplish a positive and productive action that will benefit large segments of our American society. Individuals, families and communities will benefit from sentencing reform. Congress has decided to derail it in order to benefit Wall Street.
Shame on them.
On the other hand, corporate corruption and corporate wrongdoers, largely overrepresented, wealthy and white, have rarely been sentenced or even penalized. There is no need to reform or reduce sentencing or add catchy Latin phrases—“mens rea”. There is no doubt in my mind that large banks were intent on mortgage fraud. Yet no one was sentenced.
Congress once more will fail to accomplish a positive and productive action that will benefit large segments of our American society. Individuals, families and communities will benefit from sentencing reform. Congress has decided to derail it in order to benefit Wall Street.
Shame on them.
3
Come on New York Times, you know better than this. A bedrock principle of our criminal justice system is that “a guilty mind is a necessary element in the indictment and proof of every crime.” This has repeatedly been supported by the Supreme Court. Yet in recent history there has been a deluge of federal laws and regulations where criminal intent does not have to be established for a conviction. Silly examples abound.
The National Park Service is clamping down on a nationwide rule requiring dogs on leashes no longer than 6 feet on federal park land. Dogs are banned from beaches with lifeguards. OK, sounds good. If you used the two meter dog leash that you bought in Europe you would be guilty of a federal crime, as two meters is slightly longer than six feet, Your argument that you understood the requirement, but were jut not good at metric conversions would not pardon you. The list goes on and on.
Absent a requirement to establish guilty intent in the thousands of new federal laws and regulations issued every year, it's not surprising that an eager prosecutor could discover a 'gotshu' on virtually anyone. This then is the 'tool' that Ms. Warren and presumably the NY Times wants to retain.
The counter proposal by the Republicans would clarify the notion and application of criminal intent.
The National Park Service is clamping down on a nationwide rule requiring dogs on leashes no longer than 6 feet on federal park land. Dogs are banned from beaches with lifeguards. OK, sounds good. If you used the two meter dog leash that you bought in Europe you would be guilty of a federal crime, as two meters is slightly longer than six feet, Your argument that you understood the requirement, but were jut not good at metric conversions would not pardon you. The list goes on and on.
Absent a requirement to establish guilty intent in the thousands of new federal laws and regulations issued every year, it's not surprising that an eager prosecutor could discover a 'gotshu' on virtually anyone. This then is the 'tool' that Ms. Warren and presumably the NY Times wants to retain.
The counter proposal by the Republicans would clarify the notion and application of criminal intent.
2
I think the 2 meter dog leash would be counted as substantially the same as 6 feet. And it is a misdemeanor punishable with a fine. I read the same example on a Wall Street Journal blog. Whose talking point is this? Name an example of a law in Title 18 that you think one can commit accidentally?
2
Most of the Americans in prison are in state and county prisons. Federal prisons harbor only 13% of the incarcerated. Most violent organized criminal offenses are state crimes.
With a mere 5% of Earthlings, America's 2.3 million are disproportionately poor uneducated brown and black human beings. And they are 25% of the planet's incarcerated. Non-violent illegal drug use and possession along with low level property crimes, behavioral crimes and criminal procedure violations are socioeconomic and mental health problems.
Corporations are not people. And neither oligarchs nor plutocrats are targeted by the current criminal justice system. There is a need for more focused prosecution of corporate oligarch plutocrat offenders.
With a mere 5% of Earthlings, America's 2.3 million are disproportionately poor uneducated brown and black human beings. And they are 25% of the planet's incarcerated. Non-violent illegal drug use and possession along with low level property crimes, behavioral crimes and criminal procedure violations are socioeconomic and mental health problems.
Corporations are not people. And neither oligarchs nor plutocrats are targeted by the current criminal justice system. There is a need for more focused prosecution of corporate oligarch plutocrat offenders.
7
Incredibly naive to forget how bad crime was to cause this toughening of laws. Unfortunately it will take decade for crime to become bad enough again for the devastation of this shortsighted obsession of the lawmakers to fully be realized. Btw NY Times maybe once a decade you can run an editorial on helping the victims of crime or their families??
2
And What? Responsibility is to keep locking people up because of a spreading epidemic of heroin abuse until you've disenfranchised an entire generation? Sure, we have 30 million felons, let's make 30 million more! That's the recipe for success! Sure! Let's continue not providing these people with rehabilitation, education or services to help them contribute to the economy and tax system! God knows we need ANOTHER reason to exclude people from the political and economic systems!
1
The world has turned upside down. Let the criminals and crooks go so they can continue to break the law. This is the Democrat answer to rising crime rates. Save a few dollars on prisons, and put the public in further danger. Only Democrats, liberals and progressives could come up with this bunk.
3
This is the same as Flint except the toxic water is replaced by toxic people!
Yeah, that Chuck Grassley, the notorious democratic shill, is just raring to go on that.
How much more right wing pandering to the corporate elite who have bought and paid for their votes will we accept? Time to take back our country from the Oligarchs.
9
The majority of people in jail are not drug kingpins but users so are victims themselves. Leave it to Ted Cruz to spread lies to people about all the "violent" drug offenders who will be released and to Rpublicans to want to allow irresponsible and crooked leaders of corporations to get off scott free when they break the law. It's shameful and laughable, if it wasn't tragic.
11
The very face of totalitarian capitalism! When government works for corporations and against the public interest, it is no longer of, by and for the people. The most critical need facing America today is campaign finance reform.
15
Corporations are the greatest threat to individual freedom and liberty in the world today.
Sadly, that is not going to happen.
What can be expected of that relic of a bygone era, Chuck Grassley, and his patrons who own the for-profit prison hotels. Can't make any money unless you fill them up.
9
Time to get money out of politics.
4
Actually when you think about it, it makes sense re protection from environmental or financial crimes.
Back in the day when we actually had a functioning gov. Where all 3 branches of gov. knew what they were allowed to do and not do maybe we wouldn't need "extra" protection for corporations. Let's remind ourselves what the function of "Congress" is
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Notice how the last sentence has the word "department"? In the last 8 years this gov. has been behaving like Jerry Seinfelds Bizzaro episode where Chief Justice Roberts is "Legislating" from the judicial branch(its a tax re ACA) Obama also legislating from the Executive branch (Laws changing for ACA) the EPA and IRS also writing their own laws and rules regarding fines and imprisonment. Now i wouldn't mind having some extra protection from some obscure someone that has a .gov in their email that works some back office somewhere in Timbuktu deciding what I can and cannot do,especially when money and jail is concerned.
Back in the day when we actually had a functioning gov. Where all 3 branches of gov. knew what they were allowed to do and not do maybe we wouldn't need "extra" protection for corporations. Let's remind ourselves what the function of "Congress" is
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Notice how the last sentence has the word "department"? In the last 8 years this gov. has been behaving like Jerry Seinfelds Bizzaro episode where Chief Justice Roberts is "Legislating" from the judicial branch(its a tax re ACA) Obama also legislating from the Executive branch (Laws changing for ACA) the EPA and IRS also writing their own laws and rules regarding fines and imprisonment. Now i wouldn't mind having some extra protection from some obscure someone that has a .gov in their email that works some back office somewhere in Timbuktu deciding what I can and cannot do,especially when money and jail is concerned.
1
Your comment made me laugh. Making it harder to charge financial criminals will let them take your money and get away with it. Another Wall St. attempt to game the system.
1
The change in law, related to prosecutions for suspected environmental and financial crimes, on which some Republicans are insisting, should not be summarily dismissed as just political grandstanding.
It is a virtual certainty that individuals and corporate entities had been the subjects of prosecutions under the existing loser standards, even though overzealous prosecutors may have known the cases were not strong, but forcing an expenditure of time and money was the intended punishment.
But so what if moneyed interests spend some money defending against lawsuits? It is a concern, because we know that when additional cost is imposed on businesses, that cost is passed on to the consumers. And there is also the opportunity cost. Resources used to defend against suspect lawsuits are resources not spent on innovation or business expansion.
It is a virtual certainty that individuals and corporate entities had been the subjects of prosecutions under the existing loser standards, even though overzealous prosecutors may have known the cases were not strong, but forcing an expenditure of time and money was the intended punishment.
But so what if moneyed interests spend some money defending against lawsuits? It is a concern, because we know that when additional cost is imposed on businesses, that cost is passed on to the consumers. And there is also the opportunity cost. Resources used to defend against suspect lawsuits are resources not spent on innovation or business expansion.
2
Passing on the costs to consumers should not be an excuse to legalize all financial crimes, which is what this bill does. The laws should be tightened so that lawyer fees are not the only thing financial criminals have to pay after committing illegal acts.
One of the major reasons there has been any discussion/movement about sentencing reforms is the increase in the number of white people being sentenced to current standards. Ted Cruz has flip-flopped once again! Somehow this does not surprise me. What does surprise me is that Chuck Grassley became a major sponsor of this bill. It is also a sign that this legislation doesn't go as far as it should with said reforms.
What really needs to happen decriminalization of most drugs and spend the money saved in Corrections on treatment. Most people who abuse substances come to a point where they want treatment. Immediate access to and affordable/subsidized treatment would change more lives than incarceration ever has. What do we get with our tax dollars when we send a person to prison instead of treatment? We get people who, when released, have a near impossible mountain to climb. Education, employment, potential prosperity are almost impossible for these people. Why do we throw away money on the Prison Industrial Complex over non-violent drug offenders? There are lots of other real criminals out there. Like maybe, the people responsible for the 2008 crash? That was a crime! But no, we have to get those pesky sick people out of society. Yes, addiction IS an illness just as surely as heart disease, diabetes or a broken arm. It is just simpler to consider it a character flaw than to understand the complexities of mental and behavioral health.
What really needs to happen decriminalization of most drugs and spend the money saved in Corrections on treatment. Most people who abuse substances come to a point where they want treatment. Immediate access to and affordable/subsidized treatment would change more lives than incarceration ever has. What do we get with our tax dollars when we send a person to prison instead of treatment? We get people who, when released, have a near impossible mountain to climb. Education, employment, potential prosperity are almost impossible for these people. Why do we throw away money on the Prison Industrial Complex over non-violent drug offenders? There are lots of other real criminals out there. Like maybe, the people responsible for the 2008 crash? That was a crime! But no, we have to get those pesky sick people out of society. Yes, addiction IS an illness just as surely as heart disease, diabetes or a broken arm. It is just simpler to consider it a character flaw than to understand the complexities of mental and behavioral health.
3
It's strange how the editors are almost endorsing not passing the reforms due to the proposed "intent" provisions. Thousands of poor and disadvantaged people will collectively be spending thousands of years in prison without this bill. Maybe the compromise should be that Ms. Warren and those opposing the provision should draft and introduce legislation that strengthens laws involving corporate wrongdoing.
2
Stop trying to spin this. It is the people proposing the new amendments that are holding up the bill. Stop blaming people who try to pass a clean bill as holding it up when they are just trying to get the bill passed without poison pill amendments. You logic is illogical.
If anyone ever had doubts that Republican Obstructionism was real, this is it: To inset a provision protecting Corporate Crooks into a bill to right an incredible injustice in our current Sentencing Scheme is malfeasance of the worst kind. If "criminal intent" is so important in determining guilt- then everyone convicted of a drug-usage crime, should also be vindicated and released immediately.
What "is" it about Republicans that they simply cannot control themselves from contaminating a bill by introducing a poison-pill to benefit Corporations? Is it something in the Republican credo or DNA:
If our Federal penal system isn't overhauled there is scant hope that states will ever follow.
What "is" it about Republicans that they simply cannot control themselves from contaminating a bill by introducing a poison-pill to benefit Corporations? Is it something in the Republican credo or DNA:
If our Federal penal system isn't overhauled there is scant hope that states will ever follow.
27
First time offenders of non-violent crimes should not be jailed.
However, the jails are not full of first time offenders. It is myth that first time low level drug dealers are swept into jail on their first offense. Prior to jail, most have been given a pass by the juvenille court system. The jails are full of repeat offenders.
No jailed person can claim ignorance of the consequences of the laws they break. This is particularly true in poorer comminties where the consequences are all around them.
The hard facts are that they have total contempt for the laws and they willfully break them. Eliminating punishment for these individuals will not cuase them to change their behavior.
However, every effort should be made in the penal system to take advantsge of the opportunity to educate inmates and help them make better choices in life.
However, the jails are not full of first time offenders. It is myth that first time low level drug dealers are swept into jail on their first offense. Prior to jail, most have been given a pass by the juvenille court system. The jails are full of repeat offenders.
No jailed person can claim ignorance of the consequences of the laws they break. This is particularly true in poorer comminties where the consequences are all around them.
The hard facts are that they have total contempt for the laws and they willfully break them. Eliminating punishment for these individuals will not cuase them to change their behavior.
However, every effort should be made in the penal system to take advantsge of the opportunity to educate inmates and help them make better choices in life.
2
Republicans are basically long imprisonment lovers. They will postpone sentencing reforms one way or the other. Certain people have ingrained idea that long incarcaration lead to setting a person right for future course while the truth may lie in opposite thinking.
4
Our insane Drug War and our alcohol Prohibition that preceded it created America's holocaust jamming hundreds of thousands into inhumane prisons in this country and causing untold torture and deaths in countries worldwide. And now we have Republicans who will inject politics into this issue as though they were just dealing with traffic tickets. Maybe politicians should have to spend weekends as prisoners to get a feel for what they have created.
6
Actually, it should be easier to prosecute corporations and their executives instead of harder. If it was easier, maybe corporations and their executives would see that as a behavioral deterrent and be far more serious about stopping (or not initiating) the kind of behaviors that encourage corporate wrongdoing.
And if members of both parties haven't figured out that anything Ted Cruz is leading is usually tantamount to a disaster, heaven help them.
And if members of both parties haven't figured out that anything Ted Cruz is leading is usually tantamount to a disaster, heaven help them.
4
In Congress, there's always something to be gained by taking advantage of the misfortunes of the citizenry.
4
The Koch Amendment.
3
Much resistance to the bill would come from the privatized prison industry, which wants more prisoners, not fewer. I just don't know why the NY TIMES and other outlets don't draw attention to the fact that Republicans repeatedly claim they want to reduce the deficit, and then block bipartisan efforts to do it, such as this bill. Why isn't their hypocrisy made clearer? I understand that the NY TIMES has sophisticated readers who can read between the lines, but the masses who support Republicans need simple sound bites.
5
So, the GOTP yet again wants to obstruct the nation's business because the laws they have set up that make executives almost invulnerable are not strong enough and these poor executives need to be even MORE freed from the constraints of the law.
Seriously?
One of the common threads running through the news in this country is companies that used lax oversight to twist the law to their own advantage, even when it grossly harmed many others.
How many tines have we seen stories from Wall St. about large corporations that broke the law, yet got away with a trivial fine at best - or walked away entirely? The story of the executive that did not get arrested for grievous wrongdoing has become a proverb. It's as if Congress was asked, "please ensure the arrest and prosecution of the Enron executives is never repeated in this country again!" It certainly seems this is their mandate and intent.
Congress has yet again been caught ignoring the will of the People. We keep hearing of "enraged Americans..." One of their common anger points is lack of big business accountability, where companies and their executives get away scott free, or are considered "too big to fail." Clearly Congress did not get the memo, or has decided to ignore the People yet again.
Vote these Right Wing bums out! We have had eight years of obstruction from them: enough already!
Seriously?
One of the common threads running through the news in this country is companies that used lax oversight to twist the law to their own advantage, even when it grossly harmed many others.
How many tines have we seen stories from Wall St. about large corporations that broke the law, yet got away with a trivial fine at best - or walked away entirely? The story of the executive that did not get arrested for grievous wrongdoing has become a proverb. It's as if Congress was asked, "please ensure the arrest and prosecution of the Enron executives is never repeated in this country again!" It certainly seems this is their mandate and intent.
Congress has yet again been caught ignoring the will of the People. We keep hearing of "enraged Americans..." One of their common anger points is lack of big business accountability, where companies and their executives get away scott free, or are considered "too big to fail." Clearly Congress did not get the memo, or has decided to ignore the People yet again.
Vote these Right Wing bums out! We have had eight years of obstruction from them: enough already!
6
I really don't understand the "ignorance of the law IS an excuse" argument. That has never been the case. If there are other justifications to amend the law they are not being well communicated.
2
For example, if you buy a car from a used car dealer and it turns out the car was stolen before the dealer acquired it, without a mens rea clause to the law you could be charged with possession of stolen property, since you are in possession of a stolen vehicle. Your defense is not ignorance of the law but a reasonable expectation that you were buying a legitimately acquired vehicle.
2
There are Republicans who will deny what could be touted as a Republican victory accomplishment to deny what could also be described as an Obama accomplishment. Sad, just sad.
2
The politicians responsible for wasting billions of taxpayer dollars incarcerating nonviolent "offenders" should be held accountable. The money could be used much more productively to support and protect the country.
13
Nonviolent, unless you happen to be one of the thousands of Mexicans killed in the war to supply the nonviolent Americans.
1
It is not "Sentencing Reform" that is needed but Repeals of Laws we all know are contrary to normal human behavior, which is unfortunately not understood by Robot authorities and their In-The-Pocket-Politicians.
7
Another reason a Ted Cruz nomination would be so destructive to our democracy, he is a shill for corporations not the people. If you want a candidate who knows wall street and the corporate world well enough to curb the shenanigans you must vote for Hillary. As senator from New York she has intimate knowledge of how the con game is run and knows how to rule it.
2
We called them "nonviolent drug crimes" but heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine dealers kill about 15,000 Americans each year while turning millions into addicts. Drug dealers are far more dangerous to society than criminals who use guns or knives to do their killing. There are about 12,000 murders each year, but few murderers go on killing people year after year.
1
How many people do corporations kill each year? Can we hold them equally accountable for pollution that causes cancer, for selling unhealthy foods, for bizarre urban sprawl, for the whole list?
Yes, drugs can do great harm. But locking up low level drug dealers for five or ten years doesn't do a thing to prevent those harms. Do a little research. As long as demand and addition for drugs is high, locking up a drug dealer just moves his business to someone else and doesn't accomplish a thing but cost the taxpayers money..
The only people America the Stupid punishes for corporate crimes are shareholders and pension funds.
2
Good luck hoping for any sensible legislation from the republican party - without some dangerous strings attached. You didnt even mention what it costs our country to house the people in jail for long sentences for minimal crimes. That sounds like something conservatives would like (they just call themselves conservative most of the time).
15
First, it is on the GOP owner's wishlist to be exempt from prison, like any other criminal. They are special. Second, it will protect the not only donors but the GOP politicals themselves as they move through the revolvng door. No surprise there.
As long as the for profit prison industry is driving the Republican campaign contributions our fellow citizens will be served up by those elected to represent them.
From reducing and eliminating standards and regulations to legislatively holding harmless corporate officers while prevaricating unabashedly with discredited misinformation the Republican Party continues to throw citizens, consumers and families under the bus...
20
Two points: (1) fear gets the white older male and female voters to favor the GOP in November, and (2) the true GOP leaders do not want a threat of jail time for massive pollution (a la Flint), fraud or fleecing the sick (a la Shkeli).
4
Who knew?! Organized crime can simply add "Inc." or "LLC" to their traditional names to be harder to prosecute. Mafia, Inc. anybody? Bloods Gang, LLC.? As CEO of the Sinaloa Cartel, LLC., el Chapo will look forward to leniency under this proposed federal law.
Besides, corporations are people too and the environment has no rights, right?
Besides, corporations are people too and the environment has no rights, right?
27
Who runs those prisons and make money from more people in prisons? Those people would buy few politicians (since money equals free speech in this counrty) and block any meaningful reform to sustain status quo!
3
Sentencing reform is not only necessary to provide justice to current unfair treatment (and undue jail term), it is the right thing to do. That we have obstructionists is a shame, as they have no good reasons...other than allegiance to corporate fraud in the making, given the impunity sought. That Cruz is one of the objectors is no surprise, one more reason why he is hated by so many. Compassion is awol; very disturbing!
3
It figures. Depend on some republicans (the foul party) to block something sensible and try to protect the wrongdoing of the obscenities in big corporations and among their rich bribers who are really criminals and should be charged. Republicans--the party of insensibility, inhumanity, stupidity, and wealth.
2
Congress has been holding us all hostage for a while now. The government has reached a point of total dysfunction.
4
Name names. Which Senators or Congressional representatives are once again schilling for corporations at the expense of people? Just this past week executives who fouled the water for over 300,000 people in West Virginia got what amounted to a slap on the wrist which in fact was the maximum penalty available. We need to maximize the oversight and penalties for rogue corporations who not only hurt the public but the rest of the corporations that must compete with them and follow the law and emphasize ethical practices in their corporate cultures.
14
All crimes should have a mens rea standard that must be met. Else, the matters should be prosecuted in administrative or civil forums. Indeed, strict liability standards should attach to all criminal offences. Anything less is manifestly unfair.
1
Crime wont go up? US homicide plunged 63% in that period 1993 to present since incarcerations increased.
The only US jurisdictions seeing an uptick in homicide this year are the ones who significantly reduced incarnation. Baltimore and other jurisdictions' studies find over 90% of perpetrators are prior criminals let out on the street -- and 90% of murder victims are as well? Or the work showing released violent criminals on the streets are THE variable homicide rates in the US.
Violent felons coming off of parole and supervised release on the streets began increasing two years ago -- the massive drop in violent crime flattened and in some places revers. For example 2014 saw 8,124 gun murders (about 800 of the victims non criminals according to the ratios from John Jay). That FBI USR final 8,124 is now about than one third of the per capita rate of 21 years before. 8,124/325,000,000 is 2.5 compared to 7.0 in 1993.
Look at murder US rate charts and incarceration rate charts since the early 1990's and tell people crime wont rise
The only US jurisdictions seeing an uptick in homicide this year are the ones who significantly reduced incarnation. Baltimore and other jurisdictions' studies find over 90% of perpetrators are prior criminals let out on the street -- and 90% of murder victims are as well? Or the work showing released violent criminals on the streets are THE variable homicide rates in the US.
Violent felons coming off of parole and supervised release on the streets began increasing two years ago -- the massive drop in violent crime flattened and in some places revers. For example 2014 saw 8,124 gun murders (about 800 of the victims non criminals according to the ratios from John Jay). That FBI USR final 8,124 is now about than one third of the per capita rate of 21 years before. 8,124/325,000,000 is 2.5 compared to 7.0 in 1993.
Look at murder US rate charts and incarceration rate charts since the early 1990's and tell people crime wont rise
1
You need to look at the data more closely. There is no evidence whatsoever that reductions in FEDERAL prison sentences did, or will, lead to an increase in the violent crime rates. How can we create smart policy if we can't even think clearly about the differences between the state and federal law, and stick with simplistic "less prisons equal more crime" jargon?
Just as with medical care we do not notice that other industrialized countries have more enlightened policies have better results.
4
President Obama did something morally courageous by granting Presidential Pardons to a few dozen individuals incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses. But people should not have to waste so much of their life in prison, hoping to be one of the chosen few. Lawmakers should do something morally courageous now and reform sentencing.
3
The usual suspects, special interests and scaremongering for personal advantage, could tarnish the rare bill that has bipartisan support to correct the unanticipated consequences of overdoing "tough on crime". Incarceration today is a just the beginning because jail is accompanied by financial disaster due to fees, etc and the inabillity to get a job once released, which leads to more crime.
Richard Luettgen commented that crime will rise with less incarceration, but that could be partly counterbalanced by less crime in the form of recidivism, which is sky high. On the other hand, greater impunity for corporations and CEOs will promote white collar crime.
Cruz is a spectacle praying in public and throwing his principles under the bus to get elected. Just another little glitch in the service of God and the US Constitution eh?
Richard Luettgen commented that crime will rise with less incarceration, but that could be partly counterbalanced by less crime in the form of recidivism, which is sky high. On the other hand, greater impunity for corporations and CEOs will promote white collar crime.
Cruz is a spectacle praying in public and throwing his principles under the bus to get elected. Just another little glitch in the service of God and the US Constitution eh?
2
Illegal drugs, especially heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and crack cocaine cause violent crime. Those addicted to these drugs engage in criminal activity, often violent, because in most cases they are incapable of honestly earning money to support their addiction. The disparity in prison sentences between crack cocaine and powder cocaine was originally intended to protect the poor urban communities where the sale and use of crack cocaine caused a crime wave.
A person is caught at the border with ten kilograms of heroin. The heroin smuggler is not trying to shoot his or her way through Customs so I would assume that they are non-violent. How much violence would that heroin ultimately cause? It is certainly not a question answered in this editorial. Criminal justice studies have always determined that significant criminal behavior is the result of drug addiction.
The underclass impoverished neighborhoods of cities will be the communities that suffer the most from the return of these criminals to free society. However, that is frequently the result of liberal altruism, so why should this issue be any different?
A person is caught at the border with ten kilograms of heroin. The heroin smuggler is not trying to shoot his or her way through Customs so I would assume that they are non-violent. How much violence would that heroin ultimately cause? It is certainly not a question answered in this editorial. Criminal justice studies have always determined that significant criminal behavior is the result of drug addiction.
The underclass impoverished neighborhoods of cities will be the communities that suffer the most from the return of these criminals to free society. However, that is frequently the result of liberal altruism, so why should this issue be any different?
1
It's true that the prohibition and expense of illegal drugs causes some persons to commit crimes to support their habits. It's NOT true that locking up low-level drug dealers will do anything about this, because some other dealers will just take over their share of the market. Some users will continue to commit crimes to buy drugs. We need a smarter approach than "just lock 'em up."
We live in a nation that gives petty drug offends 10 years in prison but allows corporations and their leadership fines and freedom to kill or maim thousands. Look at the damage caused by BP in the Gulf, or Exxon in Prince William Sound, and explain to me why the leaders of those corporations were not held criminally liable for their actions.
How about those fools in California who are currently releasing methane gas into a neighborhood with untold consequences for the people who live there? It is amazing to me that we imprison small time drug sellers but let corporate leaders off with a pat on the backside.
How about those fools in California who are currently releasing methane gas into a neighborhood with untold consequences for the people who live there? It is amazing to me that we imprison small time drug sellers but let corporate leaders off with a pat on the backside.
57
Petty drug offenders are the bread and butter of a multi faceted, multi billion dollar international organized crime syndicate.
A rational approach to reform should take advantage of what we know about the ability of consequences to change behavior. First reduce the punishments for serious non violent crimes. Second, decriminalize minor crimes, freeing up resources for pursuing serious criminal activity. Increase the probability of conviction and reduce the time required to convict. The magnitude of punishment does little to impact criminal behavior, but the speed and certainty of conviction does. When the punishment for criminal behavior is swift and certian , criminal behavior will decrease.
4
RG--Third, prosecute more white collar crime and put the offenders in prison for genuinely crime-deterring periods of time.
I've been reading articles about this elsewhere. No one seems to give any good examples of laws that people can break accidentally without neglecting a duty to know what they have to know when they are working in particular occupations.
1
The presidency comes to mind.
As a recent article in "New Yorker" magazine notes, this add-on to the criminal justice reform bill is sponsored by the Koch brothers, who want to provide a legislative shield agains prosecution of their rich corporate cronies (and themselves).
30
The cost of housing a federal inmate is roughly $30,600 per year.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/03/09/2015-05437/annual-de...
If we keep federal inmates in prison long enough, we insure that they will be too old or to sick or disabled to work when they are released. We can then support them on welfare (Supplemental Security Income (SSI)) the rest of their lives.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/03/09/2015-05437/annual-de...
If we keep federal inmates in prison long enough, we insure that they will be too old or to sick or disabled to work when they are released. We can then support them on welfare (Supplemental Security Income (SSI)) the rest of their lives.
11
And keep in mind that if they are not out of prison working then they are not paying into social security or Medicare.
1
Lively debate...
More Republican mischief. Perhaps if Obama had a line item veto, the temptation would vanish to add extraneous nonsense to important bills.
2
Not many will be surprised in the least when this bill is thrown under the bus. Significant numbers of big-money supporters from both parties will be happy that the incarceration status quo is preserved. Justice is not served but big-money supporters getting what they want is what matters. Even if the bill is passed and some non-violent drug users don't spend as much time in federal prison, hundreds of thousands of young people will continue to be thrown in local jails and state prisons every year for simple possession of marijuana. Feed the machine.
I've watched State of the Union speeches for decades. During that time, tens of millions have been arrested for marijuana, but the "M" word has never been mentioned unless it was Nixon or Reagan happily explaining how they were going to instruct their foot soldiers to arrest everyone under the sun. Barack Obama is not concerned - not about mass incarceration and not about sick or dying people accessing cannabis for medicine. If he was he would say something and do something, like reschedule marijuana with the stroke of a pen. He shrugs and tells Congress to act, then he might wake up and sign a bill, maybe.
Hillary Clinton should not equivocate any longer on this issue. Getting arrested for possession really matters to young people. Protecting young people from being arrested for possession really matters. Bernie Sanders has a big lead with young voters. They want to be protected from rogue arrests.
I've watched State of the Union speeches for decades. During that time, tens of millions have been arrested for marijuana, but the "M" word has never been mentioned unless it was Nixon or Reagan happily explaining how they were going to instruct their foot soldiers to arrest everyone under the sun. Barack Obama is not concerned - not about mass incarceration and not about sick or dying people accessing cannabis for medicine. If he was he would say something and do something, like reschedule marijuana with the stroke of a pen. He shrugs and tells Congress to act, then he might wake up and sign a bill, maybe.
Hillary Clinton should not equivocate any longer on this issue. Getting arrested for possession really matters to young people. Protecting young people from being arrested for possession really matters. Bernie Sanders has a big lead with young voters. They want to be protected from rogue arrests.
11
Sentencing of prisoners should not be part of our political plutocracy. Judges are appointed for life for a reason, independent judgement uncorrupted by politics and outside money.
More strong evidence that the entire Congress is owned and it's leaked out into our criminal Justice system.
Most Americans including myself have lost confidence in our political system and our criminal justice system. The next logical step is a well armed angry mob. Heads will be lost and it won't be from ISIS terrorists it will be from Patriotic Americans.
More strong evidence that the entire Congress is owned and it's leaked out into our criminal Justice system.
Most Americans including myself have lost confidence in our political system and our criminal justice system. The next logical step is a well armed angry mob. Heads will be lost and it won't be from ISIS terrorists it will be from Patriotic Americans.
5
The “mens rea” proposal is hardly the problem that the Editorial page suggests. The language proposed states ““if the offense consists of conduct that a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would not know, or would not have reason to believe, was unlawful, the government must prove that the defendant knew, or had reason to believe, the conduct was unlawful.” There is not one case in the report cited in the editorial released by Senator Warren in which a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would not know, or would not have reason to believe, the offense was unlawful. So “mesn reas” is really not the barrier to prosecution. It is simply that the DoJ, SEC and HHS refuse to use the enforcement tools available to them. Indeed, in the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster cited in the Warren report, the former CEO was convicted of WILLFULLY violating mandatory mine safety and health standards (ie – he ‘knew”). “Mens rea” or not, he would have been guilty. The penalty in that case was small because of the federal mine safety law mandatory misdemeanor rules.
Pass the bill with "mens rea" clause. It will do more good than harm. And then let’s keep the focus on the real problem – the DoJ, SEC, and HHS failing to do their jobs.
Pass the bill with "mens rea" clause. It will do more good than harm. And then let’s keep the focus on the real problem – the DoJ, SEC, and HHS failing to do their jobs.
6
But you just said the real problem was the federal mine safety law mandatory misdemeanor rules. Sounds like that and similar limitations on punishment of corporations is where we need to keep the focus. It's not that federal agencies aren't doing their jobs, it's that the corporate lobbyists are setting the standards.
What, so corporate criminals can use the "I didn't know it was illegal" defense?
Warren and Cruz will kill this reform effort, and rightfully so. Best each and every reform in the bill be a stand-alone bill. But as noted, each element would not withstand closer scrutiny. This idea that you need an omnibus bill to get things done is one reason we have an out of control federal government.
2
When we see part of the federal prison system being shuttered, and the staff of US attorney's offices being laid off, I'll believe people were serious about reform. Sorry, don't see it yet, on either side of the aisle.
14
Prosecutors often believe that they have scored a real victory when a judge imposes a long sentence.
I think this is a tempest in a teapot The "mens rea" (guilty mind or criminal intent) standard is already the law of the land. In June 2015 the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Elonis v. U.S. that Anthony Douglas Elonis was improperly charged with a federal crime when he posted explicit and violent rap lyrics on Facebook. “Although there are exceptions,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “the ‘general rule’ is that a guilty mind is ‘a necessary element in the indictment and proof of every crime.’”
So let the legislation reflect the settled law, as per the Supreme Court.
As for sentence reductions, I would note that last month here in Columbus a man released early as a result of new sentencing guidelines for convicted crack dealers killed his ex-girlfriend and her two daughters. As a felon, he wasn't allowed to own a gun so he stabbed the woman to death and slit the throats the two girls.
But I'm fine with releasing "non-violent" drug offenders. They won't be living in my neighborhood and I won't have to deal with any problems they cause.
So let the legislation reflect the settled law, as per the Supreme Court.
As for sentence reductions, I would note that last month here in Columbus a man released early as a result of new sentencing guidelines for convicted crack dealers killed his ex-girlfriend and her two daughters. As a felon, he wasn't allowed to own a gun so he stabbed the woman to death and slit the throats the two girls.
But I'm fine with releasing "non-violent" drug offenders. They won't be living in my neighborhood and I won't have to deal with any problems they cause.
Hillary and Wall Street?
How about the Republicans and Corporate greed/irresponsibility/and "free the richest offenders?"
"...Some congressional Republicans now say they will approve the [sentencing] bill only if it includes an across-the-board change in federal law that would make corporations and their executives harder to prosecute for environmental or financial crimes by imposing a new intent, or “mens rea,” standard on these crimes."
I think they practice their diatribes and snide remarks against Ms. Clinton by looking at themselves in the mirror each morning..
How about the Republicans and Corporate greed/irresponsibility/and "free the richest offenders?"
"...Some congressional Republicans now say they will approve the [sentencing] bill only if it includes an across-the-board change in federal law that would make corporations and their executives harder to prosecute for environmental or financial crimes by imposing a new intent, or “mens rea,” standard on these crimes."
I think they practice their diatribes and snide remarks against Ms. Clinton by looking at themselves in the mirror each morning..
6
On one hand we have the public calling for stricter enforcement of laws.
On the other hand we want to lessen the sentences and swing open the gates of the jail.
Why not legalize drugs? That would be a start. Release all prisoners held on drug related charges. Give people the right to choose. The right to choose to take any drugs they so desire. You do understand they are going to do it anyway I hope.
On the other hand we want to lessen the sentences and swing open the gates of the jail.
Why not legalize drugs? That would be a start. Release all prisoners held on drug related charges. Give people the right to choose. The right to choose to take any drugs they so desire. You do understand they are going to do it anyway I hope.
3
". . . a mix of some congressional Republicans, corporate interests and defense lawyers . . ."
Why does the Editorial not want to name the names here? There no problem identifying Ted Cruz as the proponent of the second obstacle.
This is an editorial, not reporting, so there is a different standard, but obstructionist lawmakers need light shined on them whenever possible.
Why does the Editorial not want to name the names here? There no problem identifying Ted Cruz as the proponent of the second obstacle.
This is an editorial, not reporting, so there is a different standard, but obstructionist lawmakers need light shined on them whenever possible.
60
As a career white collar prosecutor, it is my opinion that the controversy over the Republican "mens rea' provision is a big to do about nothing. The Republicans propose that, in fraud cases, I have to prove the defendant knew he was committing a crime. "Knowingly" is a standard requirement of fraudulent intent. I gather some law professors think adding the term where it is not stated could make my job harder. But if I can only prove that a defendant violated a regulation without proof that he knew he was breaking the law, no jury in the world will convict. White collar crime implicitly includes a knowing requirement and, indeed, ignorance of the law is a defense. The intent in white collar cases is different from the intent in violent crimes and cannot be proven absent proof of knowledge. The Republican proposal is harmless political posturing. The opposition is based on expert opinion regarding theoretical possibilities. If the Democrats had consulted any practitioners, they would have learned that the theoretical possibilities are all too subtle for what goes on in the courtroom. In response to the Republican posturing, the Democrats are doing the same. They are all arguing over a provision that is politically charged but, in my opinion, has not one iota of practical effect.
30
"if I can only prove that a defendant violated a regulation without proof that he knew he was breaking the law, no jury in the world will convict." Quite a sweeping prediction. Imagine that a guy in SouthSide Va. bordering on the Dan River is sitting on a jury in a trial of Duke Energy for dumping toxic coal ash into their water supply. Juries don't care about all this split hair nonsense, which is why the prosecutors make sure no jury trial is ever held in these cases.
2
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for everyday people. Try using that defense if you are hauled into court because of something you did or did not do because you did not know of the law that is being used to judge your actions. A Prosecutor would be the first to claim ignorance of the law is no excuse. I am surprised you as a former prosecutor takes a position that CEO's and their ilk should not be held to the same standards as everyone else. What makes them different? Their money? Their influence? Their political alignment? As another commented stated, we should accept many of these corporations have so lost their moral compass as to have become criminal organizations. And our RICO laws would go a long way to putting a stop to it. The days of CEO's claiming they know nothing (the Sargent Schultz defense!) needs to end.
17
What is a "non-violent drug offender"? Dealers, not users, go to prison. The fact that many dealers are sentenced only for dealing with drugs is little indication that they do not contribute to major crime. Since drug dealing is easy to prove, prosecutors are likely to drop other offenses. Since criminals are caught for a small percent of their crimes, even major non-drug crimes, the absence of earlier convictions for such major crimes is little evidence that they are "non-violent drug offenders." Drug dealers also contribute to crime because they are frequent robbery targets.
I can see why the Kochs' might want to flood the inner cities with criminals. They are not terrorized when this happens. "Mass imprisonment" and the need to better prisoners' condition enlarges government and might lead to more taxes. But why do the progressives want to terrorize the inner cities? I guess the answer is that they typically do not live there either.
I can see why the Kochs' might want to flood the inner cities with criminals. They are not terrorized when this happens. "Mass imprisonment" and the need to better prisoners' condition enlarges government and might lead to more taxes. But why do the progressives want to terrorize the inner cities? I guess the answer is that they typically do not live there either.
1
Americans arrested each year for simple possession of pot: 600,000
Massive eco terrorists* arrested per year: 0
Banksta's who disappeared 40% of US household wealth, arrested: 0.
The brothers of Koch Propaganda, Subversion and Pollution INC., are the largest emitters of toxic waste from sea to heating up, growing acidic sea.
Somehow our shared atmosphere and waterways have become their free toxic waste dump.
Massive eco terrorists* arrested per year: 0
Banksta's who disappeared 40% of US household wealth, arrested: 0.
The brothers of Koch Propaganda, Subversion and Pollution INC., are the largest emitters of toxic waste from sea to heating up, growing acidic sea.
Somehow our shared atmosphere and waterways have become their free toxic waste dump.
28
The stand-off in Oregon started because of the mandatory sentencing. The judge had no choice but to follow the silly law even though it touched off a violent protest that cost millions of dollars. It should be obvious to even conservatives at this point that it isn't just the "other guys" (i.e. minorities) that can trapped by these laws. it is time to change them.
5
“Senator Ted Cruz is leading this attack on the new bill.”
Why don’t we just vote Ted in as president...then he won’t be able to hold up so much legislation. He even caucuses with the House to make sure they do things his way.
Why don’t we just vote Ted in as president...then he won’t be able to hold up so much legislation. He even caucuses with the House to make sure they do things his way.
3
It is so galling and reprehensible for anyone to make it easier for corporations (and their executive and employees) to escape liability for the environmental and economic damage they cause. Haven't we the people borne enough from corporate interests that externalize their costs and losses on the rest of us? How do these people live with themselves? Corporate greed and the corporate takeover of America. Don't they have enough already? It's long past time to push back. These add-ons should be rejected out-of-hand.
32
We are in a period of time when large numbers of Americans believe that criminals, besides being victimizers, are also victims. That alone is reason to exercise caution before implementing radical sentencing reforms.
1
The feds prosecute a tiny fraction of the criminal cases brought in this country. States, counties, and cities handle the vast majority of the cases. The reason for the great increase in federal cases has partly been to ease the burden on the states. More important, the Times has repeatedly reported that the crime rate is going down across the country. Assuming the Board reads the newspaper, they are purposely distorting the statistics to conceal the fact that crime is going down and the Sentencing Reform Act is not going to roll back an imprisonment spree because there is nos such spree.
1
There certainly is a Prison Spree in California- even with the so-called Prison Alignment- particularly in rural Counties which house virtually all California Prisions.
Anyone who has lived in the U.S. for twenty years knows full well that there is NO such thing as a nonviolent drug seller. There are too many drug sellers, cops and mayors murdered on an ongoing basis between the jungles and the marketplace to call this seamy business nonviolent.
The voters are tired of biased journalists prostituting themselves to play politics and scare up votes for the Democrats.
Next up: Democrats will announce that anyone not killing any more than 5 people while committing a robbery is, you guessed it - nonviolent.
But if Grassley is for it, it is probably a good idea.
The voters are tired of biased journalists prostituting themselves to play politics and scare up votes for the Democrats.
Next up: Democrats will announce that anyone not killing any more than 5 people while committing a robbery is, you guessed it - nonviolent.
But if Grassley is for it, it is probably a good idea.
reply toL’OsservatoreA: actually there are thousands and thousands of non-violent "drug sellers" sitting in American prisons; the thousands of low-level druggies selling to get money to feed their own addictive habit. No sure where you reside, but where I reside in California, daily those are being arrested and convicted and sent BACK to state prisons because they are caught with just enough "packaged goods" to be charged with "Intent to sell". The only violence they commit is the violence they commit on their own bodies: The drugs of choice being Meth isn't exotic enough to warrant the type of sympathy of heroin therefore the "Meth-head" druggie, gets sent back to prison, be it male or female.
1
The "jungles," eh?
Thanks for making your actual mens rea clear.
Thanks for making your actual mens rea clear.
1
We needn't assume that crime rates would rise as a result of less severe sentencing guidlines as some have suggested. What is needed is a lot more focus on counseling and rehabilitation in conjunction with lighter sentences. Rehabilitation will not work in every case but it can have a substantial impact.
2
Change in federal law that would make corporations and their executives harder to prosecute for environmental or financial crimes by imposing a new intent, or “mens rea,” standard has an enticing work-around for prosecutors, something they really ought to have been doing anyway.
They could and now already ought to be applying the Racketeering laws, RICO. The penalties reach farther and are much fiercer. They correctly describe people who run organizations using crimes or to commit crimes, which is what this really is.
They're racketeers, not business men, when they commit these crimes.
They could and now already ought to be applying the Racketeering laws, RICO. The penalties reach farther and are much fiercer. They correctly describe people who run organizations using crimes or to commit crimes, which is what this really is.
They're racketeers, not business men, when they commit these crimes.
137
In a controversial RICO case, black teachers in Atlanta were charged with racketeering for altering student test scores. RICO was used to prove that black teachers are racketeers. Some got probation. Some a few months. The max was 3 years. Rest assured, the government is protecting you against organized crime.
2
All that is being asked is that intent to commit a crime be proved. That does not seem unreasonable to me.
1
Very good point. Well said.
The editors contribute to damaging the prospects for passage of a necessary bill by suggesting that dramatically fewer incarcerations WON’T lead to higher rates of crime; and perhaps not just low-level, non-violent drug related crime, but violent crime, as well. Some subset of those incarcerated for non-violent crimes are violent individuals who simply were caught committing and convicted of non-violent crimes.
Crime rates will go up, but as a society we’ve basically concluded that this is a price we must pay for incarcerating less than the immense number of people, disproportionately black and Hispanic, that we currently incarcerate. However, make a big deal of claims that crime rates won’t rise and people will remember that assertion.
Crime rates will go up, but as a society we’ve basically concluded that this is a price we must pay for incarcerating less than the immense number of people, disproportionately black and Hispanic, that we currently incarcerate. However, make a big deal of claims that crime rates won’t rise and people will remember that assertion.
18
You have an excellent point. Crime rates may well rise in the short-term. To make sure they come down in the longer term, the nation needs to pay attention to Bernie Sanders' point that just maybe there's a correlation between youth unemployment and crime.
And then it needs to do something about it.
And then it needs to do something about it.
118
Using your logic, why not incarcerate anyone, no matter what their age, committing a crime for life? That would surely reduce the crime rate and keep some possibly violent criminals off the street.
5
Youth unemployment in urban areas blghted by the drug trade need stablity in order to create the sorts of entry level jobs those youths need.
Such stability cannot be achieved in the presence of anacrve drug trade, no matter how much the pathologically naive liberals and libertarians wish it were so.
Such stability cannot be achieved in the presence of anacrve drug trade, no matter how much the pathologically naive liberals and libertarians wish it were so.
Begging the question " Which white collar criminals has anyone noticed being sentenced " ?
It's not like any CEO's have gone to jail under Sarbanes-Oxley provisions, even though a lot of banksters would have been prime candidates, so we're hard pressed to pick out any white collar types that could have possibly been mistreated by harsh sentencing.
Rather than cave in, if the GOP'ers insist on such a poison pill amendment, Democrats should help make sure the entire bill fails, so that D.O.J. can still pursue individuals under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act like they have at Koch Bros. entities, Sheldon Adelson's casino interests, Walmart's Mexico operations, Tyson Foods' operations, etc., etc., etc.:
http://www.propublica.org/article/so-what-exactly-are-the-latest-revelat...
and
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/adelson-my-casino-is-being-inv...
Readers will have to Google other links, as NYTimes won't accept more than 2 links per post.
It's not like any CEO's have gone to jail under Sarbanes-Oxley provisions, even though a lot of banksters would have been prime candidates, so we're hard pressed to pick out any white collar types that could have possibly been mistreated by harsh sentencing.
Rather than cave in, if the GOP'ers insist on such a poison pill amendment, Democrats should help make sure the entire bill fails, so that D.O.J. can still pursue individuals under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act like they have at Koch Bros. entities, Sheldon Adelson's casino interests, Walmart's Mexico operations, Tyson Foods' operations, etc., etc., etc.:
http://www.propublica.org/article/so-what-exactly-are-the-latest-revelat...
and
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/adelson-my-casino-is-being-inv...
Readers will have to Google other links, as NYTimes won't accept more than 2 links per post.
85
Most White collar crime is settled with large corporate fines paid for by investors and many blue collar pension funds. The people paying for white collar crime are essentially people saving for their retirement.
10
Don't be naive, it's as rampant as "voter fraud". :)
And to add insult to injury, these same corporations are, at times, able to take a deduction for the settlement, so we the taxpayers end up subsidizing the settlement. Nice, eh?
2
Judges are tasked to apply the law in ways police cannot, to evaluate the reasons behind a crime, determine the danger-to-the-public of said crime, and decide which course of action available would better serve prevention and safety. White-Collar Crime is already more difficult to prosecute, because of the influence of Wealth. Republicans are preventing socially responsible legislation from passing by imposing exploitation of this bill to protect their Corporate Backers; a concept antithetical to the spirit of the bill itself. It not only has no place in this bill, but it is stopping reinstituting a primary task of the judiciary; Judgment!
Scott E. Torquato, MS, LCSW