A Real Chance at Criminal Justice Reform

Here's the kind of "Criminal Justice Reform" I'd like to see: When I was a kid in the 50's I fondly remember listening to Arnie "Woo-Woo" Ginsburg on WMEX in Boston. But by 1960, when I was only 12 the "Payola scandal, in which "Ginsburg was among a number of high-profile Boston disc jockeys called upon to testify before a congressional hearing in Washington DC.. Several of the announcers, Ginsburg among them, acknowledged receiving monetary "gifts" from record promoters over the past several years. In Ginsburg's case, he told the committee that the gifts totaled $4,400 over a three-year period. But Ginsburg was never implicated in any wrongdoing, nor was it proved that he played certain records because he had been paid to do so. Reporters covering the hearings were divided in their opinions of whether payola had occurred, or whether the hearings were much ado about nothing. As for Ginsburg's role, some journalists seemed willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, referring to him as "scholarly" and "soft-spoken", and quoting his assertion that he was never influenced to play songs he did not personally believe in." Wow, what innocent times. Now the type of "Criminal Justice Reform" that I'd love to see is Emperor 'Emoluments Donnie', the whole stinkin' Congress, and Un-Supreme Court to pay as much attention to the Ruling Elite Corporate/Financial Crooks being given more than a slap on the wrist for looting $17 Trillion from 'our supposed country' with 'Big Payola'.

A Real Chance at Criminal Justice Reform - Find 'em guilty, lock 'em up, and throw away the key!

Don't put your hopes up. The last time I did, he was acting friendly toward "Chuck and Nancy" when it came to discussing immigration policies, and a few months later he was separating a nursing mother from an infant child and putting them in cages. Sorry, but this is Trump we're referring to. When it comes to his supporters (for instance, people who are making a lot of money detaining other people in private prisons), he hasn't thought it through. Both McConnell and Trump are morally bankrupt influence-peddlers - yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Will we see sentencing reform before or after the 10% middle class tax cut?

What's McConnell's gamer here? Did he not get the memo from the election that we are sick of partisan politics and the way that the majority has acted? He seems to be married to the idea of party first.

Yes. Criminal justice reform. It's the moral, the humane, the fair, the rational, the practical, and the economically sensible thing to do. Of course Mitch McConnell refuses to schedule a vote. He's a Republican.

Hooray! One clear hint of progress from the removal of Sessions. But I am at a loss as to why it is to the advantage of House Republicans as the article asserts to push this bill before the Democrats take control of the House. Seems more in keeping with that band of reactionaries to oppose it and then frighten their base in the 2020 elections with all of the "hardened criminals" the Democrats released from prison. Forgive my cynicism but we are talking about a party of sociopaths many of whom belong in jail themselves.

Even if you detest Trump, you should support this bill. It brings some decency and justice to the thousands who (would) have excessive sentences. It's not perfect--all of the changes should be made retroactive--but it brings a bit of humanity to what is a an incredibly unjust system. In addition to the aspect of mercy humanity, it reduces costs and makes us safer.

The inmates really have taken over the asylum. After 20 years of reduction of violent crime, the extremes of the right and the left are rejoicing in the possibility of releasing dangerous, repeat felons faster than judges and the lumpen public were told. Return to the glorious days of the early 80s with all-time violent crime highs! Of course, the cosseted elite who are preening over their noblesse oblige are unlikely to be the victims of crime. Nor are those tucked away in the executive suites of the TIMES likely to see the consequences of ignoring decades of bloody experience from those of us who have labored year in and year out in the courthouses and streets - not the executive suites - of America. Kurt Vonnegut called false associations “granfaloons.” The idea that ignoring the 1/2 of 1 percent who commit the worst crimes will make the other 99.5% safer is delusional.

Is there really a chance at this when it comes to Trump? Pardon my cynicism, but his blatant lack of foresight is omnipresent in anything he utters. What will happen once he's reminded of the profit motive of the Trump supporters who happen to own private prisons. McConnell is not going to care that scuttling this will make him look bad. Does he care? He filibustered his own legislation, he can't look any worse as it is. He's enamored of how good his retirement account looks.

A very big step would be to define drug use as a disease not a crime. This would have a great impact. Drug dealers? still a crime. Drug users, sick folks who need treatment not jail. Next a strong post jail path for jobs.

As a responsible firearm owner, I see no good reason to remove the extra federal penalty for committing a crime with a gun. They indicate removing the "stacking" penalty for gun crimes is part of the "reform." What is wrong with leaving that law as-is?

People have short memories, and the current generation has little or no knowledge of what crime was like in the eighties through the mid nineties when, for example, NYC had nearly 2,000 murders per year. I clearly remember communities, clergy, and politicians from across the political spectrum demanding stricter sentencing requirements, especially when a gun was used in the commission of a crime. If you want to look at draconian legislation, look no further than the Clinton administration's proposals, drawn in response to what was a national emergency most adversely impacting the neighborhoods now considered "victimized" by the justice system. I worked in that system for fifteen years, and I support the changes now sought, strongly oppose private prisons, and urge states to legalize cannabis. But don't forget that many of the worst actors from the bad times were taken off the street and incarcerated- and I do believe that crime rates are at historic lows partially because of that.

Mental health means reduced criminal behavior. If only rehabilitation could be framed this way. We must reduce the incarceration ratio in this country. -Reduce sentences, wherever possible until we at least get the holding houses operating at or below capacity. -Purge privatization from the institutions of incarceration. "For profit" spells corruption, like it or not. In this case, that of prisons, profit oriented institutions create a certain assault upon the concept of freedom itself. But we the people are the ones who pay if we do not address this mess we have made regarding both prisons and justice. Going straight to real solutions: -Address criminal behavior as a mental health issue. -Restore social and family values, and protect the institutions that protect these morally fundamental values. This, this form of programmed thinking, could eliminate the problem before it starts, one individual at a time. -Meanwhile, we need to provide programs of counseling and whatever means science and technology can create to restore mental health in the individual. An incarcerated person needs, in order to have even the chance of rehabilitation, to somehow harbor the idea of hope. How we treat those we ourselves have condemned is the true measure of ourselves. In the meantime, we just pay, all of us.

Meaningful sentencing reform is such a long overdue proposition. Evidence-based sentencing and other criminal reforms decrease costs in the long run, and help restore families and communities. Now if only I could believe that Trump actually has the attention span or initiative to make a meaningful contribution to this problem....

This is an area that both side can work together. There are others. If all the Democrates do is call committees to see Trump's taxes or get even with him for defeating Clinton, the next two years will make voters wonder why they vote them the majority. Trump has the veto and the Republicans have at least a one or two increase in the Senate. Last year Trump met with Pelosi and Shummer and said if they passed a Dreamers bill he would sign it. I don't know that they even tried. But there are plenty other areas they could find to work together. But will they? K

To the extent new criminal justice legislation can restore judicial discretion to sentencing, everyone benefits. Of the many horrors ushered in by late 80's and early 90's vintage criminal justice "reform," the transfer of power from the judiciary to the executive branch was one of the most problematic. Prosecutors win cases - and dictate sentences - with indictments because mandatory sentencing makes trial too risky and limits judical options at sentencing. This unbalances the adverserial system that is supposed to offer the best opportunity for justice. Judicial discretion enhances the individualization of sentencing. By the time of a sentencing hearing, the accused and the conduct is better understood. Probation departments have pulled criminal histories, defense counsel has developed and presented a full picture of the accused's background and the parties have narrowed the scope of the punishable behavior from often ambitious counts in the indictment to offenses established by admission or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no need to impose a "one-size-fits-all" sentence. Rather than blind punishment via incarceration, judicial discretion can lead to nuanced approaches involving substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment and incentivized employment searches, to name a few things. In certain cases, it can also further the cause of making the victim whole. Importantly, an individualized sentence should also reduce recidivism.

Reform that will move toward a more level playing (and sentencing) field? I'm in favor. An opportunity for bi-partisan congressional action? Long, long overdue. What's not to like here, lame duckers? Go for it!

I sense an attempt by DJT to position himself as a real bi-partisan neo-liberal. Maybe he thinks he’s ridden the Conservative wave as far as it can take him. He has the sharpest political instincts since Ronald Reagan, another “amateur” who completely out-foxed the professionals.

Like in the immediate aftermath of Parkland trump has here orchestrated another Alice-In-Wonderland political moment of reality TV expediency! Once him and his accused scam-artist Acting Attorney General powder puffs the stench surrounding them with the charade of a this faux bipartisan epiphany their support for this Bill will be tossed into the dustbin with the bumpstock ban and the background checks! One wonders why this Editorial Board keeps playing the trump pivot game! Even more discombobulating why it traffics in let’s-hope-the-Dems-don't-sacrifice-the-good-for-the-perfect blame shifting. Very trumpian!

Jefferson Disregard Sessons is indeed out, so perhaps it's time to legalize cannabis at the federal level, if only for the federal tax add-on that they could slap on every state purchase? Of course, +90% of those revenues would find a way to the already-bloated military budget. But look on the bright side: thousands of people currently incarcerated for possessing / selling / using the substance would no longer be incarcerated. For-Profit prisons are anathema to a free, democratic society since any profit comes from the need to get people incarcerated and, for whatever reason, then keep people incarcerated all the while leeching federal monies that could be better spent elsewhere, and that includes elsewhere other than the bloated military budget.

While I admire the NYT's optimism, the reality is that the Republicans are simply gaming the system. Republicans have never believed in "equal justice for all." They see out laws as a way to keep the rich, the White, the male and the Conservative Christians in power. It is neither Sessions not Trump that have stopped the Republican Congress from working at making the Federal system fair. It is the Republican Congress who beleive that the rick have rights and the poor have prison that keeps the old racist system in place.

What's McConnell's utterly depraved and cynical party-motivated reason for reneging now?

They are just moving to reform as they see all of their fellow GOP members going to prison.

The left decries gun violence but in this instance supports a measure that would reduce the time for criminals that use a gun in a crime. This makes no sense. Surely, criminals that use guns in crimes should be the kind of criminal that stays in jail.

Huh? Dream on. In any case, please, Editorial Board, don't impair your fine image by expecting anything from Trump but window-dressing, if that. The article would have been improved by stating noble goals that would seem to be either inconsistent with Republican cruelty or, again, another lip-service to the appropriate opinions of the majority of citizens, or both.

I saw an interview with someone from the Koch organization yesterday discussing this legislation. I was surprised.

I'm all for reforms, but come on. How many times are we going to get gaslit by the President before editorial boards stop penning articles that assume he's going to do anything constructive?

Without retroactive reform, our prisons will still be filled with people convicted for nonviolent drug offenses, which is particularly harsh given the national wave of cannabis decriminalization. The for-profit prison industry was a big donor to Trump's campaign, so retroactive reform is unlikely. These companies might be able to adjust to a slowing of their incoming profit producers (prisoners), but they'll lobby hard to retain the current population.

These potential "front end" reforms are so needed. Sentencing must become sensible. As one who works with younger - particularly younger men - who done their time, I believe that once a person has done his time he must be allowed to live his life. His crime should not follow him forever. Often, he can not get hired which means he can not rent an apartment or even buy food. Our communities are not served well by this situation.

This bill seems like a step in the right direction. But being the cynic that I am, I do not believe it’s origin is the desire to rectify the harsh crack epidemic sentences meted out to primarily black Americans. The current opioid epidemic , and the prior meth plague, affect far more white folks, and many are ensconced in Trumpland. We should all be thankful for the nascent empathy “law and order” conservatives have evoked for those fellow Americans who have strayed from the “straight and narrow” path, but it won’t help the GOP at the polls if their constituency is behind bars on Election Day. I really believe the devastating opioid epidemic affecting white people was the impetus for this otherwise progressive step. Maybe it is a step which will presage other legislation beneficial to Trump’s “base” that will actually be unifying, such as an increase in the minimum wage, health care reform, strengthening labor protections. Nah...says the cynic.

I am hopeful this is could small step in a better direction. A far-reaching bill such as this, with bipartisan support, could provide a much needed salve for the herpetic, partisan outbreak afflicting our wonderful country. It is right to closely scrutinize any such bill however and allow time for complete, thorough review. We only need to look at the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the rhetoric, prognostication surrounding the bill at the time, and its unintended consequences to see why. Take the three-strikes rule for example. In 2012 I moved from New Hampshire to Louisiana, a place I am now happy and grateful to call home. Beautiful as this state and its people are, it is not without its own problematic (read: life-ruining) legal antiquities. To this day, the Louisiana State Penitentiary is more commonly known as Angola. Originally a plantation; it was named after the homeland of its former slaves. It traced its origins as a prison back to 1880, when inmates were housed in the old slave quarters and worked on the plantation. In those years, a private firm ran the state penitentiary. While it is now "state-run," many of it's residents are serving out life sentences for non-violent crimes. They perform *free* labor for the state, with no light at the end of the tunnel. Change is sorely needed. Let's focus on the details, not the bluster, and get it right.

When the names Kushner, Whitaker and McConnell appear in the same article, despite the good intentions, questions and doubts arise. Sentencing reform, yes, under Trump and the Republicans, not so sure. Time will tell.

It's seems strange that the idea of criminal justice reform is exclusively to help criminals get less time. If it was combined with 20 year mandatory sentences for any crime committed with a firearm, I would be far more in favor of "balancing" the system. Justice reform should be about victims of crime as much as about criminals

" In this early test, the president is signaling that he indeed wants to make progress on critical issues that enjoy broad support. Lawmakers from both parties should follow suit." The problem with trump is that he says he "supports" a lot of ideas only to veto them when they are put in front of him to sigh into law. If congress comes up with a reasonable prison reform bill and gets the bill to trump, will he sign, or will he cross it out?