Saturday, October 31, 2015
SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGH: BEER PROLONGS MEN’S SEX PERFORMANCE
Dr. Kay Van Kirk, a Los Angeles sex therapist, says that beer is full of phytoestrogens which are scientifically proven to delay orgasms in men
Hey guys, worried about your performance in bed? Not to worry, here is some good news. Dr. Kay Van Kirk, a Los Angeles certified sex therapist, says that downing a couple pints of beer helps sex last longer.
Van Kirk says that beer is full of phytoestrogens which are scientifically proven to delay orgasms in men. She says dark beers like stouts are best of all because they boost libido and, due to their high Iron content, increase the amount of red blood cells that circulate to the penis, resulting in longer, more intense erections.
Let’s give three cheers to Guinness Stout.
Not to be outdone by Guinness Stout, the Scottish Innis & Guinn brewery has now come up with a beer substitute for Viagra which it calls ‘50 Shades of Green.’
However, all this is not good news for hardshell Baptists and devout Muslims who consider the consumption of alcohol a serious sin. To that my Russian friends would say, “Tough shitzky!”
Hey guys, worried about your performance in bed? Not to worry, here is some good news. Dr. Kay Van Kirk, a Los Angeles certified sex therapist, says that downing a couple pints of beer helps sex last longer.
Van Kirk says that beer is full of phytoestrogens which are scientifically proven to delay orgasms in men. She says dark beers like stouts are best of all because they boost libido and, due to their high Iron content, increase the amount of red blood cells that circulate to the penis, resulting in longer, more intense erections.
Let’s give three cheers to Guinness Stout.
Not to be outdone by Guinness Stout, the Scottish Innis & Guinn brewery has now come up with a beer substitute for Viagra which it calls ‘50 Shades of Green.’
However, all this is not good news for hardshell Baptists and devout Muslims who consider the consumption of alcohol a serious sin. To that my Russian friends would say, “Tough shitzky!”
VICIOUS, FERAL HOUSE REPUBLICANS RUN LOOSE ACROSS D.C. FOLLOWING RESIGNATION OF CARETAKER
Responding police officers reportedly found the House chamber torn apart, smeared with viscera and feces, and partially on fire
The Onion
October 30, 2015
WASHINGTON—According to law enforcement personnel and dozens of distraught eyewitnesses, packs of savage, ferocious House Republicans are currently running loose through the nation’s capital, causing mayhem and bloodshed on a mass scale following the departure of their longtime caretaker, John Boehner.
The crazed and vicious GOP representatives, who are said to be howling wildly and wearing the tattered remains of business attire, reportedly worked themselves into a frenzy after Boehner failed to attend to them earlier today and subsequently broke free from the House chamber. Sources confirmed that the elected officials have since carved a trail of chaos and destruction through the city, attacking civilians along the National Mall, running amok through Metro tunnels, overturning cars, and storming numerous federal office buildings.
Hundreds are believed dead.
“At this time, we can confirm that we have captured Representatives Steve King, Mark Meadows, and Don Young, but the other 243 escaped congressmen remain at large and should be considered extremely dangerous,” said D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier amid piles of wreckage and large pools of blood in the Capitol rotunda, explaining that the carnage began on the House floor when an agitated member of the Freedom Caucus picked up an American flag stand and drove it through the heart of Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA), who had voted earlier this week in favor of a compromise budget deal. “We understand the pandemonium erupted immediately after the caretaker’s resignation became effective, causing the horde of frenzied representatives to rip the House chamber’s door off its hinges and pour down the Capitol steps and out into the city.”
“I cannot emphasize enough that without vigilant caretaking, these representatives can become unstable and violent at a moment’s notice,” she continued. “Until authorities are able to safely tranquilize and net them, we recommend all residents seek shelter indoors.”
Because Boehner was reportedly all that maintained order among the wild bands of House Republicans, Beltway insiders said his absence all but ensured that anarchy, derangement, and fervent bloodlust would reign over the legislative body’s majority caucus. Indeed, shortly after the lawmakers convened this morning, a visibly raving Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy allegedly began jumping up and down on the rostrum, riling up his GOP colleagues, while House Sergeant at Arms Paul D. Irving, unable to gain a handle on the situation, was said to have been trampled to death when members decided to bolt for the exits.
Onlookers confirmed traffic has been completely stalled on K Street by an ongoing confrontation between a potentially rabid Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) and a blood-spattered Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX), both of whom have spent the past several hours bearing their teeth, snarling, and wildly charging at each other in a brutal attempt to establish dominance.
Additionally, widespread blackouts in the D.C. area were reported after a manic Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) gnawed through a power line and electrocuted herself.
“It’s absolutely terrifying; I saw Representative Jeb Hensarling wandering down the middle of Constitution Avenue dragging a lifeless congressional page behind him,” said D.C. resident Harold Peters, who added that he nearly took pity on a bruised, visibly shell-shocked, and completely naked Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) he had seen muttering to himself and rocking back and forth in the fetal position beside a bonfire of historical documents outside the National Archives. “And I don’t think I’ll ever be able to erase from my mind the horrible screams that [Treasury Secretary] Jacob Lew made when he got cornered by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee behind the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. By the time [Rep.] Jason Chaffetz started throwing him around like a rag doll, there was nothing we could do.”
“Those poor moderates in their pack didn’t stand a chance, either,” he added, noting the recent discovery of various severed body parts belonging to Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Peter King (R-NY), and Charlie Dent (R-PA) floating in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Many D.C. residents said they are too frightened to leave their homes, citing in particular a delirious Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), who was said to have hissed at passersby as he shredded pages of gun control legislation in Dupont Circle, and the failed attempts by local police to use a signed authorization for the Keystone XL pipeline to coax a torch-wielding Policy Committee Chairman Luke Messer (R-IN) down from the roof of the Energy Department building, where he continues to hold several hostages, his hair matted in dirt and excrement.
Furthermore, eyewitness accounts indicate a berserk Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has spent the past 20 minutes repeatedly running at full speed into the locked entrance of Planned Parenthood’s D.C. headquarters, apparently attempting to break down its doors.
“Our law enforcement professionals will restore order to our streets and neighborhoods as soon as possible, but, clearly, our city needs to have a plan in place to ensure this never happens again,” Washington mayor Muriel Bowser told reporters at a hastily convened press conference at her executive office, the sounds of civilians shrieking, National Guard helicopters, and occasional gunfire audible behind her. “As much as I’d like to believe the next caretaker of the House will be able to hold things together, it’s entirely possible they’ll rip him to shreds within just a few months’ time and we’ll be right back where we are now.”
She added: “Let’s be honest. That guy has no chance.”
The Onion
October 30, 2015
WASHINGTON—According to law enforcement personnel and dozens of distraught eyewitnesses, packs of savage, ferocious House Republicans are currently running loose through the nation’s capital, causing mayhem and bloodshed on a mass scale following the departure of their longtime caretaker, John Boehner.
The crazed and vicious GOP representatives, who are said to be howling wildly and wearing the tattered remains of business attire, reportedly worked themselves into a frenzy after Boehner failed to attend to them earlier today and subsequently broke free from the House chamber. Sources confirmed that the elected officials have since carved a trail of chaos and destruction through the city, attacking civilians along the National Mall, running amok through Metro tunnels, overturning cars, and storming numerous federal office buildings.
Hundreds are believed dead.
“At this time, we can confirm that we have captured Representatives Steve King, Mark Meadows, and Don Young, but the other 243 escaped congressmen remain at large and should be considered extremely dangerous,” said D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier amid piles of wreckage and large pools of blood in the Capitol rotunda, explaining that the carnage began on the House floor when an agitated member of the Freedom Caucus picked up an American flag stand and drove it through the heart of Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA), who had voted earlier this week in favor of a compromise budget deal. “We understand the pandemonium erupted immediately after the caretaker’s resignation became effective, causing the horde of frenzied representatives to rip the House chamber’s door off its hinges and pour down the Capitol steps and out into the city.”
“I cannot emphasize enough that without vigilant caretaking, these representatives can become unstable and violent at a moment’s notice,” she continued. “Until authorities are able to safely tranquilize and net them, we recommend all residents seek shelter indoors.”
Because Boehner was reportedly all that maintained order among the wild bands of House Republicans, Beltway insiders said his absence all but ensured that anarchy, derangement, and fervent bloodlust would reign over the legislative body’s majority caucus. Indeed, shortly after the lawmakers convened this morning, a visibly raving Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy allegedly began jumping up and down on the rostrum, riling up his GOP colleagues, while House Sergeant at Arms Paul D. Irving, unable to gain a handle on the situation, was said to have been trampled to death when members decided to bolt for the exits.
Onlookers confirmed traffic has been completely stalled on K Street by an ongoing confrontation between a potentially rabid Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) and a blood-spattered Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX), both of whom have spent the past several hours bearing their teeth, snarling, and wildly charging at each other in a brutal attempt to establish dominance.
Additionally, widespread blackouts in the D.C. area were reported after a manic Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) gnawed through a power line and electrocuted herself.
“It’s absolutely terrifying; I saw Representative Jeb Hensarling wandering down the middle of Constitution Avenue dragging a lifeless congressional page behind him,” said D.C. resident Harold Peters, who added that he nearly took pity on a bruised, visibly shell-shocked, and completely naked Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) he had seen muttering to himself and rocking back and forth in the fetal position beside a bonfire of historical documents outside the National Archives. “And I don’t think I’ll ever be able to erase from my mind the horrible screams that [Treasury Secretary] Jacob Lew made when he got cornered by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee behind the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. By the time [Rep.] Jason Chaffetz started throwing him around like a rag doll, there was nothing we could do.”
“Those poor moderates in their pack didn’t stand a chance, either,” he added, noting the recent discovery of various severed body parts belonging to Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Peter King (R-NY), and Charlie Dent (R-PA) floating in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Many D.C. residents said they are too frightened to leave their homes, citing in particular a delirious Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), who was said to have hissed at passersby as he shredded pages of gun control legislation in Dupont Circle, and the failed attempts by local police to use a signed authorization for the Keystone XL pipeline to coax a torch-wielding Policy Committee Chairman Luke Messer (R-IN) down from the roof of the Energy Department building, where he continues to hold several hostages, his hair matted in dirt and excrement.
Furthermore, eyewitness accounts indicate a berserk Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has spent the past 20 minutes repeatedly running at full speed into the locked entrance of Planned Parenthood’s D.C. headquarters, apparently attempting to break down its doors.
“Our law enforcement professionals will restore order to our streets and neighborhoods as soon as possible, but, clearly, our city needs to have a plan in place to ensure this never happens again,” Washington mayor Muriel Bowser told reporters at a hastily convened press conference at her executive office, the sounds of civilians shrieking, National Guard helicopters, and occasional gunfire audible behind her. “As much as I’d like to believe the next caretaker of the House will be able to hold things together, it’s entirely possible they’ll rip him to shreds within just a few months’ time and we’ll be right back where we are now.”
She added: “Let’s be honest. That guy has no chance.”
OBAM’S TRAGIC LET ’EM OUT FANTASY
The president leads the charge to cut the prison population, but mass incarceration isn’t the problem
By Heather Mac Donald
The Wall Street Journal
October 23, 2015
President Obama paid a media-saturated visit in July to a federal penitentiary in Oklahoma. The cell blocks that he toured had been evacuated in anticipation of his arrival, but after talking to six prescreened inmates he drew some conclusions about the path to prison. “These are young people who made mistakes that aren’t that different than the mistakes I made and the mistakes that a lot of you guys made,” the president told the waiting journalists. The implication was that anyone who had smoked marijuana and tried cocaine (as Mr. Obama had) could land in a place like the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution.
The conceit was preposterous. It takes a lot more than marijuana or cocaine use to end up in federal prison. But the truth didn’t matter. Mr. Obama’s prison tour came amid the biggest delegitimation of law enforcement in recent memory. Activists, politicians and the media have spent the past year broadcasting a daily message that the criminal-justice system is biased against blacks and insanely draconian. The immediate trigger for this movement, known as Black Lives Matter, was a series of highly publicized deaths of black males at the hands of the police. But the movement also builds on a long-standing discourse from the academic left about “mass incarceration,” policing and race.
Now that discourse is going mainstream. As the media never tire of pointing out, some high-profile figures on the right are joining the chorus on the left for deincarceration and decriminalization. Newt Gingrich is pairing with left-wing activist Van Jones, and the Koch brothers have teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union to call for lowered prison counts and less law enforcement. Republican leaders on Capitol Hill support reducing or eliminating mandatory sentences for federal drug-trafficking crimes, in the name of racial equity.
At the state and city levels, hardly a single criminal-justice practice exists that is not under fire for oppressing blacks. Traffic monitoring, antitheft statutes, drug patrols, public-order policing, trespass arrests, pedestrian stops, bail, warrant enforcement, fines for absconding from court, parole revocations, probation oversight, sentences for repeat felony offenders—all have been criticized as part
of a de facto system for locking away black men and destroying black communities.
There may be good reasons for radically reducing the prison census and the enforcement of criminal laws. But so far the arguments advanced in favor of that agenda have been as deceptive as the claim that prisons are filled with casual drug users. It is worth examining the gap between the reality of law enforcement and the current campaign against it, since policy based on fiction is unlikely to yield positive results.
Two days before his Oklahoma penitentiary visit, Mr. Obama addressed the NAACP national conference in Philadelphia and raised the same themes. The “real reason our prison population is so high,” he said to applause, is that we have “locked up more and more nonviolent drug offenders than ever before, for longer than ever before.”
This assertion is the most common fallacy of the deincarceration movement, given widespread currency by Michelle Alexander’s 2010 book, “The New Jim Crow.” That a president would repeat the myth is a demonstration of the extent to which ideology now rules the White House.
Pace Mr. Obama, the state-prison population (which accounts for 87% of the nation’s prisoners) is dominated by violent criminals and serial thieves. In 2013 drug offenders made up less than 16% of the state-prison population; violent felons were 54% and property offenders 19%. Reducing drug-related admissions to 15 large state penitentiaries by half would lower those states’ prison count by only 7%, according to the Urban Institute.
In federal prisons—which hold only 13% of the nation’s prisoners—drug offenders make up half of the inmate population. But these offenders aren’t casual drug users; overwhelmingly, they are serious traffickers. Fewer than 1% of drug offenders sentenced in federal court in 2014 were convicted of simple drug possession, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Most of those possession convictions were plea-bargained down from trafficking charges.
Another myth promoted by the deincarceration movement is that blacks are disproportionately targeted by federal drug prosecutions. The numbers tell a different story: Hispanics made up 48% of drug offenders sentenced in federal court in 2013; blacks were 27%, and whites 22%.
Even on the state level, drug-possession convicts are rare. In 2013 only 3.6% of state prisoners were serving time for drug possession—again, often the result of a plea bargain on more serious charges—compared with 12% of prisoners convicted of trafficking. Virtually all the possession offenders had long prior arrest and conviction records.
Nor is it true that rising drug prosecutions drove the increase in the prison population from the late 1970s to today. Even during the most rapid period of prison growth—from 1980 to 1990—violent prisoners accounted for 36% of the rise in the state prison population, compared with 33% from drug offenders. From 1990 to 2000, violent offenders accounted for 53% of the census increase and all of the increase from 1999 to 2004.
Mr. Obama and other incarceration critics have targeted mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug crimes. The current penalty structure is hardly sacrosanct, but mandatory sentences are an important prosecutorial tool for inducing cooperation from defendants. The federal minimums are also not lightly levied. A 10-year sentence for heroin trafficking requires possession of a kilogram of heroin, enough for 10,000 individual doses, with a typical street value of at least $70,000. Traffickers without a serious criminal history can avoid application of a mandatory sentence by cooperating with investigators. It is their choice not to do so.
Critics of “mass incarceration” love to compare American incarceration rates unfavorably with European rates. Crime is inevitably left out of the analysis. The U.S. homicide rate is seven times higher than the combined rate of 21 Western developed nations plus Japan, according to a 2011 study by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and the UCLA School of Public Health. The same people who denounce American gun violence (responsible for the great majority of U.S. homicides) and call for gun control in a domestic context go silent about such violence when using Europe as a cudgel against the American prison system.
Contrary to the advocates’ claim that the U.S. criminal-justice system is mindlessly draconian, most crime goes unpunished, certainly by a prison term. For every 31 people convicted of a violent felony, another 69 people arrested for violence are released back to the streets, according to a 2007 analysis of state courts by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That low arrest-to-conviction rate reflects, among other things, prosecutors’ decisions not to go forward with a case for lack of cooperative witnesses or technical errors in police paperwork. The JFA Institute estimated in 2007 that in only 3% of violent victimizations and property crimes does the offender end up in prison.
Far from being prison-happy, the criminal-justice system tries to divert as many people as possible from long-term confinement. “Most cases are triaged with deferred judgments, deferred sentences, probation, workender jail sentences, weekender jail sentences,” writes Iowa State University sociologist Matt DeLisi in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Criminal Justice.
Offenders given community alternatives “are afforded multiple opportunities to violate these sanctions only to receive additional conditions, additional months on their sentence, or often, no additional punishments at all,” Mr. DeLisi adds. In 2009, 27% of convicted felons in the 75 largest counties received a community sentence of probation or treatment, and 37% were sentenced not to prison but to jail, where sentences top out at one year but are usually completed in a few weeks or months. Only 36% of convicted felons in 2009 got a prison term.
Statistical war continues to be waged over incarceration’s role in the last two decades’ decline in crime, with activists and many academics denying that incarceration contributed to the drop. Given the nonstop pressure from the Black Lives Matter movement, we may be embarking on another real-world experiment testing the relationship between incapacitation and crime.
If the country is really serious about lowering the prison count, it is going to have to put aside the fictions about the prison population. The legendary pot-smoker clogging up the rolls is long gone, if he ever existed. Cutting the prison population will require slashing the sentences of violent criminals and property offenders (many of whom have violent histories) and keeping more of them in the community after their convictions.
On Tuesday night, New York Police Officer Randolph Holder was fatally shot in the head. His killer, according to law-enforcement authorities, was a career criminal who had been diverted to drug treatment after his latest conviction, in lieu of a prison term. The shooter had absconded from his drug program, authorities said, and was gang-banging in an East Harlem housing project when he killed Officer Holder, who had responded to reports of shots fired.
Clearly, if community alternatives to incarceration are going to work, far tighter screening and supervision will be required.
A more promising alternative to incarceration is policing—above all, pedestrian stops and Broken Windows policing. New York’s prison population dropped 17% between 2000 and 2009, while the number of prisoners in the rest of the country continued to rise. The decrease in the New York prison population is all the more surprising, since the average sentence meted out to convicted felons over that period increased considerably, contradicting the standard deincarceration line of attack.
The different trajectories of the New York and national prison counts reflect the onset, in 1994, of the New York City Police Department’s practice of aggressively enforcing quality-of-life laws and stopping and questioning people engaged in suspicious behavior. Misdemeanor arrests in the city doubled from 1990 to 2009, while felony arrests (and thus, felony convictions) plummeted, as documented by Michael Jacobson and James Austin, in a 2013 study for the Brennan Center for Justice. Even though convicted felons in New York were being sentenced to longer terms, there were far fewer such convicts, so the overall incarcerated population fell. And the reason for that drop in felony crime is that the NYPD was apprehending potential felons for lower-level quality-of-life offenses and getting them off the street before they had the opportunity to commit more serious crimes.
Reasonable-suspicion stops represent an even earlier intervention in potentially serious criminal behavior: Questioning someone who looks to be casing a jewelry store in an area plagued by burglaries may prevent a subsequent break-in. And the possibility of getting stopped deters crime in the first place. Yet the political opposition to policing, especially to misdemeanor enforcement and pedestrian stops, is even more pointed now than the opposition to incarceration.
The demonization of the police and the criminal-justice system must end. As the Black Lives Matter movement marches forward with no apparent diminution of strength, there are signs that the very legitimacy of law and order is breaking down in urban areas. Resistance to lawful police action is becoming routine. Officers are reluctant to engage, given the nonstop campaign against them.
Homicides in 35 large U.S. cities this year were up nearly 20% by August. Liberal elites have successfully kept attention focused exclusively on phantom police and criminal-justice racism while squelching even the most nascent discussion of the crime-breeding chaos of broken families at the heart of inner-city underclass culture. We are playing with fire.
Ms. Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. This op-ed was adapted from the 25th-anniversary issue of the institute’s City Journal, where Ms. Mac Donald is a contributing editor.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Most of what Heather Mac Donald is saying is what I have been saying all along.
By Heather Mac Donald
The Wall Street Journal
October 23, 2015
President Obama paid a media-saturated visit in July to a federal penitentiary in Oklahoma. The cell blocks that he toured had been evacuated in anticipation of his arrival, but after talking to six prescreened inmates he drew some conclusions about the path to prison. “These are young people who made mistakes that aren’t that different than the mistakes I made and the mistakes that a lot of you guys made,” the president told the waiting journalists. The implication was that anyone who had smoked marijuana and tried cocaine (as Mr. Obama had) could land in a place like the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution.
The conceit was preposterous. It takes a lot more than marijuana or cocaine use to end up in federal prison. But the truth didn’t matter. Mr. Obama’s prison tour came amid the biggest delegitimation of law enforcement in recent memory. Activists, politicians and the media have spent the past year broadcasting a daily message that the criminal-justice system is biased against blacks and insanely draconian. The immediate trigger for this movement, known as Black Lives Matter, was a series of highly publicized deaths of black males at the hands of the police. But the movement also builds on a long-standing discourse from the academic left about “mass incarceration,” policing and race.
Now that discourse is going mainstream. As the media never tire of pointing out, some high-profile figures on the right are joining the chorus on the left for deincarceration and decriminalization. Newt Gingrich is pairing with left-wing activist Van Jones, and the Koch brothers have teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union to call for lowered prison counts and less law enforcement. Republican leaders on Capitol Hill support reducing or eliminating mandatory sentences for federal drug-trafficking crimes, in the name of racial equity.
At the state and city levels, hardly a single criminal-justice practice exists that is not under fire for oppressing blacks. Traffic monitoring, antitheft statutes, drug patrols, public-order policing, trespass arrests, pedestrian stops, bail, warrant enforcement, fines for absconding from court, parole revocations, probation oversight, sentences for repeat felony offenders—all have been criticized as part
of a de facto system for locking away black men and destroying black communities.
There may be good reasons for radically reducing the prison census and the enforcement of criminal laws. But so far the arguments advanced in favor of that agenda have been as deceptive as the claim that prisons are filled with casual drug users. It is worth examining the gap between the reality of law enforcement and the current campaign against it, since policy based on fiction is unlikely to yield positive results.
Two days before his Oklahoma penitentiary visit, Mr. Obama addressed the NAACP national conference in Philadelphia and raised the same themes. The “real reason our prison population is so high,” he said to applause, is that we have “locked up more and more nonviolent drug offenders than ever before, for longer than ever before.”
This assertion is the most common fallacy of the deincarceration movement, given widespread currency by Michelle Alexander’s 2010 book, “The New Jim Crow.” That a president would repeat the myth is a demonstration of the extent to which ideology now rules the White House.
Pace Mr. Obama, the state-prison population (which accounts for 87% of the nation’s prisoners) is dominated by violent criminals and serial thieves. In 2013 drug offenders made up less than 16% of the state-prison population; violent felons were 54% and property offenders 19%. Reducing drug-related admissions to 15 large state penitentiaries by half would lower those states’ prison count by only 7%, according to the Urban Institute.
In federal prisons—which hold only 13% of the nation’s prisoners—drug offenders make up half of the inmate population. But these offenders aren’t casual drug users; overwhelmingly, they are serious traffickers. Fewer than 1% of drug offenders sentenced in federal court in 2014 were convicted of simple drug possession, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Most of those possession convictions were plea-bargained down from trafficking charges.
Another myth promoted by the deincarceration movement is that blacks are disproportionately targeted by federal drug prosecutions. The numbers tell a different story: Hispanics made up 48% of drug offenders sentenced in federal court in 2013; blacks were 27%, and whites 22%.
Even on the state level, drug-possession convicts are rare. In 2013 only 3.6% of state prisoners were serving time for drug possession—again, often the result of a plea bargain on more serious charges—compared with 12% of prisoners convicted of trafficking. Virtually all the possession offenders had long prior arrest and conviction records.
Nor is it true that rising drug prosecutions drove the increase in the prison population from the late 1970s to today. Even during the most rapid period of prison growth—from 1980 to 1990—violent prisoners accounted for 36% of the rise in the state prison population, compared with 33% from drug offenders. From 1990 to 2000, violent offenders accounted for 53% of the census increase and all of the increase from 1999 to 2004.
Mr. Obama and other incarceration critics have targeted mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug crimes. The current penalty structure is hardly sacrosanct, but mandatory sentences are an important prosecutorial tool for inducing cooperation from defendants. The federal minimums are also not lightly levied. A 10-year sentence for heroin trafficking requires possession of a kilogram of heroin, enough for 10,000 individual doses, with a typical street value of at least $70,000. Traffickers without a serious criminal history can avoid application of a mandatory sentence by cooperating with investigators. It is their choice not to do so.
Critics of “mass incarceration” love to compare American incarceration rates unfavorably with European rates. Crime is inevitably left out of the analysis. The U.S. homicide rate is seven times higher than the combined rate of 21 Western developed nations plus Japan, according to a 2011 study by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and the UCLA School of Public Health. The same people who denounce American gun violence (responsible for the great majority of U.S. homicides) and call for gun control in a domestic context go silent about such violence when using Europe as a cudgel against the American prison system.
Contrary to the advocates’ claim that the U.S. criminal-justice system is mindlessly draconian, most crime goes unpunished, certainly by a prison term. For every 31 people convicted of a violent felony, another 69 people arrested for violence are released back to the streets, according to a 2007 analysis of state courts by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That low arrest-to-conviction rate reflects, among other things, prosecutors’ decisions not to go forward with a case for lack of cooperative witnesses or technical errors in police paperwork. The JFA Institute estimated in 2007 that in only 3% of violent victimizations and property crimes does the offender end up in prison.
Far from being prison-happy, the criminal-justice system tries to divert as many people as possible from long-term confinement. “Most cases are triaged with deferred judgments, deferred sentences, probation, workender jail sentences, weekender jail sentences,” writes Iowa State University sociologist Matt DeLisi in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Criminal Justice.
Offenders given community alternatives “are afforded multiple opportunities to violate these sanctions only to receive additional conditions, additional months on their sentence, or often, no additional punishments at all,” Mr. DeLisi adds. In 2009, 27% of convicted felons in the 75 largest counties received a community sentence of probation or treatment, and 37% were sentenced not to prison but to jail, where sentences top out at one year but are usually completed in a few weeks or months. Only 36% of convicted felons in 2009 got a prison term.
Statistical war continues to be waged over incarceration’s role in the last two decades’ decline in crime, with activists and many academics denying that incarceration contributed to the drop. Given the nonstop pressure from the Black Lives Matter movement, we may be embarking on another real-world experiment testing the relationship between incapacitation and crime.
If the country is really serious about lowering the prison count, it is going to have to put aside the fictions about the prison population. The legendary pot-smoker clogging up the rolls is long gone, if he ever existed. Cutting the prison population will require slashing the sentences of violent criminals and property offenders (many of whom have violent histories) and keeping more of them in the community after their convictions.
On Tuesday night, New York Police Officer Randolph Holder was fatally shot in the head. His killer, according to law-enforcement authorities, was a career criminal who had been diverted to drug treatment after his latest conviction, in lieu of a prison term. The shooter had absconded from his drug program, authorities said, and was gang-banging in an East Harlem housing project when he killed Officer Holder, who had responded to reports of shots fired.
Clearly, if community alternatives to incarceration are going to work, far tighter screening and supervision will be required.
A more promising alternative to incarceration is policing—above all, pedestrian stops and Broken Windows policing. New York’s prison population dropped 17% between 2000 and 2009, while the number of prisoners in the rest of the country continued to rise. The decrease in the New York prison population is all the more surprising, since the average sentence meted out to convicted felons over that period increased considerably, contradicting the standard deincarceration line of attack.
The different trajectories of the New York and national prison counts reflect the onset, in 1994, of the New York City Police Department’s practice of aggressively enforcing quality-of-life laws and stopping and questioning people engaged in suspicious behavior. Misdemeanor arrests in the city doubled from 1990 to 2009, while felony arrests (and thus, felony convictions) plummeted, as documented by Michael Jacobson and James Austin, in a 2013 study for the Brennan Center for Justice. Even though convicted felons in New York were being sentenced to longer terms, there were far fewer such convicts, so the overall incarcerated population fell. And the reason for that drop in felony crime is that the NYPD was apprehending potential felons for lower-level quality-of-life offenses and getting them off the street before they had the opportunity to commit more serious crimes.
Reasonable-suspicion stops represent an even earlier intervention in potentially serious criminal behavior: Questioning someone who looks to be casing a jewelry store in an area plagued by burglaries may prevent a subsequent break-in. And the possibility of getting stopped deters crime in the first place. Yet the political opposition to policing, especially to misdemeanor enforcement and pedestrian stops, is even more pointed now than the opposition to incarceration.
The demonization of the police and the criminal-justice system must end. As the Black Lives Matter movement marches forward with no apparent diminution of strength, there are signs that the very legitimacy of law and order is breaking down in urban areas. Resistance to lawful police action is becoming routine. Officers are reluctant to engage, given the nonstop campaign against them.
Homicides in 35 large U.S. cities this year were up nearly 20% by August. Liberal elites have successfully kept attention focused exclusively on phantom police and criminal-justice racism while squelching even the most nascent discussion of the crime-breeding chaos of broken families at the heart of inner-city underclass culture. We are playing with fire.
Ms. Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. This op-ed was adapted from the 25th-anniversary issue of the institute’s City Journal, where Ms. Mac Donald is a contributing editor.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Most of what Heather Mac Donald is saying is what I have been saying all along.
Friday, October 30, 2015
BOYCOTT TARANTINO: MOVIE DIRECTOR CALLOUSLY CALLS COPS MURDERERS DAYS AFTER OFFICER IS GUNNED DOWN
Los Angeles Police Protective League
October 28, 2015
The anti-police rhetoric perpetuated throughout society the past year has often bordered on hysteria. However, film director Quentin Tarantino took it to a new and completely unacceptable level this past weekend.
During an anti-police march in New York, Tarantino flatly referred to police as murderers. It is worth noting that he made these remarks just four days after New York Police Officer Randolph Holder was murdered when a gunman opened fire on him and his partner. Furthermore, NYPD officers cleared a path for the demonstrators and stood their posts while Tarantino vilified them. We suspect he appreciated the uniformed presence in New York, as he does when officers—many times LAPD officers—provide security during the filming of his movies in and around Los Angeles.
His unconscionable comments prompted New York police and union leaders to immediately call Tarantino out. Commissioner Bill Bratton, noting the timing of Tarantino’s hateful remarks, said there were “no words to describe the contempt I have for him and his comments.” Union President Patrick Lynch said it’s time to “send a message to this purveyor of degeneracy” by boycotting his films.
We fully agree with both Bratton and Lynch and support this boycott.
There is no excuse for police brutality or mistreatment of the citizens. We’re sworn to protect and serve.
The laser-like focus over the past year on isolated cases of perceived police wrongdoing, and utterly irresponsible rhetoric by individuals such as Tarantino, threaten the safety of police and citizens alike.
It’s well accepted that dehumanizing a specific group of people, as Tarantino did, encourages attacks against them. Indeed, FBI statistics show ambush attacks are accounting for an increasing number of police officer murders. Of the 36 such attacks over the past decade, seven occurred in 2014 alone, including the double ambush of two NYPD officers in December.
There is also increasing evidence that the cacophony of police criticism has helped spark a surge in violent crime in cities nationwide. Officers have reported that they have avoided getting out of their patrol cars and making stops because of the “Ferguson effect”—a fear that their legitimate actions will be recorded and misrepresented on social media to make them appear to be out-of-control thugs. FBI Director James Comey, in a speech last week, stated that “a chill wind (has been) blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior.”
Calling cops murderers might help a privileged member of Hollywood’s elite assuage his liberal guilt, and even get some like-minded people to go see his violence-drenched movies. But if you stand on the side of decency, law and order—and value law enforcement officers who risk their lives while performing their daily duties—please join us in boycotting Tarantino’s films.
We fully support constructive dialogue about how law enforcement officers interact with citizens. But there is no place for hateful and inflammatory rhetoric that makes police officers even bigger targets that they already are—and threatens public safety at the same time.
EDITOR’S NOTE: When Tarantino called police officers murderers he hit a new low for the far-left rhetoric spewed out by the Hollywood elite. His outrageous and provocative remark was inciting and inexcusable. However a boycott of Tarantino’s movies and movie sets will have little effect on Tarantino and his fellow police haters, and it would get hardly any public notice.
Here is my suggestion: Go ahead and boycott Tarantino’s movies and movie sets, but also Boycutt both the next Academy Awards and Golden Globe Awards ceremonies because each has given the police hater two awards. By that I mean that no on-duty or off-duty police officers will provide any security for or at the two ceremonies. The only police presence will be the normal day-to-day police squad cars on patrol in the area, nothing more, nothing less. If they have a problem, they can call 911!
Now that will get the attention of Tarantino and his fellow travelers among Hollywood’s elite, and it will also get the attention of the public.
October 28, 2015
The anti-police rhetoric perpetuated throughout society the past year has often bordered on hysteria. However, film director Quentin Tarantino took it to a new and completely unacceptable level this past weekend.
During an anti-police march in New York, Tarantino flatly referred to police as murderers. It is worth noting that he made these remarks just four days after New York Police Officer Randolph Holder was murdered when a gunman opened fire on him and his partner. Furthermore, NYPD officers cleared a path for the demonstrators and stood their posts while Tarantino vilified them. We suspect he appreciated the uniformed presence in New York, as he does when officers—many times LAPD officers—provide security during the filming of his movies in and around Los Angeles.
His unconscionable comments prompted New York police and union leaders to immediately call Tarantino out. Commissioner Bill Bratton, noting the timing of Tarantino’s hateful remarks, said there were “no words to describe the contempt I have for him and his comments.” Union President Patrick Lynch said it’s time to “send a message to this purveyor of degeneracy” by boycotting his films.
We fully agree with both Bratton and Lynch and support this boycott.
There is no excuse for police brutality or mistreatment of the citizens. We’re sworn to protect and serve.
The laser-like focus over the past year on isolated cases of perceived police wrongdoing, and utterly irresponsible rhetoric by individuals such as Tarantino, threaten the safety of police and citizens alike.
It’s well accepted that dehumanizing a specific group of people, as Tarantino did, encourages attacks against them. Indeed, FBI statistics show ambush attacks are accounting for an increasing number of police officer murders. Of the 36 such attacks over the past decade, seven occurred in 2014 alone, including the double ambush of two NYPD officers in December.
There is also increasing evidence that the cacophony of police criticism has helped spark a surge in violent crime in cities nationwide. Officers have reported that they have avoided getting out of their patrol cars and making stops because of the “Ferguson effect”—a fear that their legitimate actions will be recorded and misrepresented on social media to make them appear to be out-of-control thugs. FBI Director James Comey, in a speech last week, stated that “a chill wind (has been) blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior.”
Calling cops murderers might help a privileged member of Hollywood’s elite assuage his liberal guilt, and even get some like-minded people to go see his violence-drenched movies. But if you stand on the side of decency, law and order—and value law enforcement officers who risk their lives while performing their daily duties—please join us in boycotting Tarantino’s films.
We fully support constructive dialogue about how law enforcement officers interact with citizens. But there is no place for hateful and inflammatory rhetoric that makes police officers even bigger targets that they already are—and threatens public safety at the same time.
EDITOR’S NOTE: When Tarantino called police officers murderers he hit a new low for the far-left rhetoric spewed out by the Hollywood elite. His outrageous and provocative remark was inciting and inexcusable. However a boycott of Tarantino’s movies and movie sets will have little effect on Tarantino and his fellow police haters, and it would get hardly any public notice.
Here is my suggestion: Go ahead and boycott Tarantino’s movies and movie sets, but also Boycutt both the next Academy Awards and Golden Globe Awards ceremonies because each has given the police hater two awards. By that I mean that no on-duty or off-duty police officers will provide any security for or at the two ceremonies. The only police presence will be the normal day-to-day police squad cars on patrol in the area, nothing more, nothing less. If they have a problem, they can call 911!
Now that will get the attention of Tarantino and his fellow travelers among Hollywood’s elite, and it will also get the attention of the public.
WHERE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES STAND ON MARIJUANA
Legalization has suddenly become a sticky issue in the 2016 election
By Dylan Stableford and Michael Walsh
Yahoo News
October 28, 2015
When the candidates take the stage in Boulder, Colo., on Wednesday night for the third Republican debate, they will do so in a state that effectively became the premiere test case for America’s foray into drug legalization when it became the first to regulate the sale of recreational marijuana more than 19 months ago.
A Gallup poll released last week shows a majority of Americans continue to support that effort, with 58 percent saying pot use should be legal in the United States.
So where does the crop of 2016 presidential candidates stand on the marijuana issue?
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
• Ever smoke marijuana? Sounds like it.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana, access to banking services, right for states to decide
• MPP (Marijuana Policy Project) grade: A-
Paul is the most vocal critic of the so-called “war on drugs” in the GOP field.
The libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator has been outspoken in his support of medical marijuana, decriminalization of marijuana and keeping the federal government out of heady state-level politics like the legalization.
“If your kid was caught selling marijuana or growing enough that it’s a felony conviction, they could be in jail for an extended period of time — they also lose their ability to be employable,“ Paul told a local Kentucky television station last year. "I want to change all of that. I want to lessen the criminal penalties on it.”
In March, Paul joined Democratic Sens. Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand in introducing a historic bipartisan bill that would end the federal ban on medical marijuana, allowing “patients, doctors and businesses in states that have already passed medical marijuana laws to participate in those programs without fear of federal prosecution.”
In an interview with Yahoo News’ Katie Couric, Paul called out Bush for his opposition to Florida’s medical marijuana initiative.
“If you’ve got MS in Florida, Jeb Bush voted to put you in jail if you go to a local drugstore and get medical marijuana,” he said. “Yet he was doing it for recreational purposes, and it’s a different standard for him because he was from a very wealthy family going to a wealthy school, and he got off scot-free.”
In June, Paul hosted a VIP reception for campaign donors at the National Cannabis Industry Association’s second annual Cannabis Business Summit and Expo in Denver, where he fielded questions from about 40 people on his support of federal medical marijuana and allowing states to determine their own cannabis laws, among other weed-centric issues, according to the NCIA.
A month later, he joined the bipartisan effort to give America’s legal marijuana industry access to banking services, co-sponsoring the Marijuana Businesses Access to Banking Act of 2015, in the Senate.
As for his own use?
“Let’s just say I wasn’t a choirboy when I was in college,” Paul said in an interview with WHAS-TV. “I can recognize that kids make mistakes, and I can say that I made mistakes when I was a kid.”
The Marijuana Policy Project, a pro-pot lobbying group that is rating the 2016 candidates based on marijuana policy, gave Paul an "A-” — the highest grade among any of 15 remaining the Republican hopefuls.
Jeb Bush, former Florida governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes — and he’s sorry about it, mom.
• Position on pot: Opposes legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
During the second Republican presidential debate, Bush said he smoked pot in high school.
“Forty years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it,” Bush. “I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did.”
“Sorry Mom,” Bush tweeted shortly after his admission.
But the former Florida governor also said legalization should be left up to the states.
“What goes on in Colorado, as far as I’m concerned, that should be a state decision,” Bush said. “But if you look at the problem of drugs in this — in this society today, it’s a serious problem.”
Bush pointed to the heroin epidemic in states like Vermont and New Hampshire, saying the federal government should “play a consistent role” in providing treatment and prevention programs.
“People’s families are being torn apart,” he said. “In Florida, there are drug courts to give people a second chance.”
But Bush has taken a hard-line approach when it comes to legalization. Last fall, he released a statement urging Florida voters to reject a ballot initiative that would have legalized medical marijuana in the Sunshine State.
“Allowing large-scale, marijuana operations to take root across Florida, under the guise of using it for medicinal purposes, runs counter” to efforts to make Florida “a world-class location to start or run a business, a family-friendly destination for tourism and a desirable place to raise a family or retire,” Bush said.
A majority of Florida voters (57 percent) disagreed, but the measure fell short of the 60 percent approval it needed to pass.
Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard chief executive
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear
• Position on pot: Supports decriminalization, but not much else.
• MPP grade: C+
During the second Republican presidential debate, Fiorina used the issue of marijuana legalization to pivot to a personal story about her stepdaughter, Lori, who died in 2009 after struggling with alcohol, prescription pills and bulimia.
“I very much hope I am the only person on this stage who can say this, but I know there are millions of Americans out there who will say the same thing,” Fiorina said. “My husband Frank and I buried a child to drug addiction. So, we must invest more in the treatment of drugs.”
Fiorina says she supports allowing individual states to determine their own marijuana laws, but she has personal reservations about pot use.
“We are misleading young people when we tell them that marijuana is just like having a beer. It’s not,” she said. “And the marijuana that kids are smoking today is not the same as the marijuana that Jeb Bush smoked 40 years ago.”
The former Hewlett-Packard chief executive called for criminal justice reform.
“We do need criminal justice reform,” she said. “We have the highest incarceration rates in the world. Two-thirds of the people in our prisons are there for non-violent offenses, mostly drug related. It’s clearly not working. But we need to tell young people the truth. Drug addiction is an epidemic, and it is taking too many of our young people. I know this sadly from personal experience.”
Donald Trump
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports legalizing medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana.
• MPP grade: C
Back in 1990, real estate developer Donald Trump said that the U.S. would have to legalize all drugs to win the war on drugs by taking the profits from the “drug czars.”
But Trump moved considerably to the right on the issue.
“I’d say [regulating marijuana] is bad. Medical marijuana is another thing,” he said on C-SPAN in February, “but I think it’s bad and I feel strongly about that.”
When confronted with a states’ rights argument, Trump responded, “If they vote for it, they vote for it. But, you know, they’ve got a lot of problems going on in Colorado right now. Big problems. But I think, medical marijuana, 100 percent.”
He has trolled Bush for his admitted past marijuana use by implying that the government might still enjoy a puff from time to time.
Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana in “compassionate cases,” but not recreational marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
Carson says that medical marijuana can be helpful for patients under certain circumstances but does not support legalizing the plant, calling it a gateway drug.
“I think medical use of marijuana in compassionate cases certainly has been proven to be useful,” the retired neurosurgeon said in a recent interview with Fox News. “But recognize that marijuana is what’s known as a gateway drug. It tends to be a starter drug for people who move onto heavier duty drugs – sometimes legal, sometimes illegal – and I don’t think this is something that we really want for our society.”
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio
• Ever smoke marijuana? “If I tell you that I haven’t, you won’t believe me.”
• Position on pot: Supports limited legalization of medical marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
Rubio is nearly as vocal in his opposition to legalization as Christie.
In April, he said he would roll back marijuana laws enacted in states like Colorado.
“I think we need to enforce our federal laws,” Rubio told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. States have their rights,“ Rubio said, but they don’t have a right to rewrite federal policy.
"I don’t believe we should be in the business of legalizing additional intoxicants in this country for the primary reason that when you legalize something, what you’re sending [is] a message to young people [that] it can’t be that bad,” Rubio said. “Because if it was that bad, it wouldn’t be legal.”
In a 2014 interview with the Tampa Bay Times, Rubio did say he supports legalizing medical marijuana — as long as it doesn’t get you high.
“If there are medicinal uses of marijuana that don’t have the elements that are mind-altering or create the high but do alleviate whatever condition it may be they are trying to alleviate, that is something I would be open to,” he said.
Like Bush, Rubio opposed last year’s ballot initiative that would have made medical marijuana legal in Florida.
The Florida senator has also refused to answer whether he ever smoked marijuana.
“If I tell you that I haven’t, you won’t believe me,” Rubio told Fusion in 2014. "And if I tell you that I did, then kids will look up to me and say, ‘Well, I can smoke marijuana because look how he made it. He did all right, so I guess I can do it too.’”
He added: “The bottom line is that it is a substance that alters your mind. Now when I was 17 and 18 and 16, I made dumb decisions as is. I didn’t need the help of marijuana or alcohol to further that.”
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes, "foolishly.”
• Position on pot: Personally opposed, but supports letting the states decide.
• MPP grade: C+
Cruz has shifted positions on the issue of legalization.
But at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, Cruz said he supports Colorado’s experiment with legalization.
“If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative,” he said. “I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.”
“I don’t support drug legalization, but I do support the Constitution,“ Cruz told the Texas Tribune the next month. "I think individual states can choose to adopt it. So if Texas had it on the ballot, I’d vote against it, but I respect the authority of states to follow different policies.”
But in 2014, the Texas senator blasted the Obama administration for not interfering with states like Colorado and Washington on weed.
“The Obama administration’s approach to drug policy is to simply announce that across the country, it is going to stop enforcing certain drug laws,” Cruz told Reason magazine. “Now, that may or may not be a good policy, but I would suggest that should concern anyone — it should even concern libertarians who support that policy outcome — because the idea that the president simply says criminal laws that are on the books, we’re going to ignore [them]. That is a very dangerous precedent.
“Anyone who is concerned about liberty should be concerned about the notion that this president, over and over again, has asserted the right to pick and choose what laws to follow,” Cruz continued. “That is fundamentally dangerous to the liberty of the people.”
Like Bush, Cruz smoked pot when he was a teenager.
“Teenagers are often known for their lack of judgment, and Sen. Cruz was no exception,” a Cruz spokesperson told the Daily Mail. “When he was a teenager, he foolishly experimented with marijuana. It was a mistake, and he’s never tried it since.”
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
• Ever smoke marijuana? “The answer is no.”
• Position on pot: Opposes legalization, will roll back laws in states like Colorado.
• MPP grade: F
Among all the GOP presidential candidates, Christie is the most unwavering in his opposition to marijuana legalization — and says he’ll enforce the federal laws against it as president.
The New Jersey governor says his opposition to legal weed is reaffirmed every time he visits Colorado.
“For the people who are enamored with the idea, with the income — the tax revenue — from this, go to Colorado and see if you want to live there,” Christie said in April 2014. “See if you want to live in a major city in Colorado where there’s head shops popping up on every corner and people flying into your airport just to come and get high. To me, it’s just not the quality of life we want to have here in the state of New Jersey, and there’s no tax revenue that’s worth that.”
The governor likes to boast that New Jersey is the first state in the nation to mandate that non-violent, non-dealing drug users be sent to treatment for their first offense rather than jail.
But "that doesn’t mean we should be legalizing gateway drugs,” he said during last month’s Republican presidential debate.
“I think it sends a wrong message to our kids,“ Christie said on his radio show last year. "And I don’t think it makes anybody a better or more productive person.”
In April, Christie was asked by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt if he would force states to end regulation.
“Absolutely,” he said bluntly. “I will crack down and not permit it.”
In 2012, Christie was asked on Twitter if he had ever gotten high.
“The answer is no,” the governor tweeted.
Not surprisingly, Christie gets an “F” from the Marijuana Policy Project — the lowest grade among any of the 2016 candidates.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: “Totally opposed” to recreational and medical marijuana
• MPP grade: C-
Kasich says that he is opposed to recreational and medical marijuana because it is a “scourge in this country.” When asked about states that have legalized marijuana, he admits that he has not thought about it much.
“I haven’t thought about this. I’d have to give it a little thought,“ Kasich said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show in April. "In my state and across this country, if I happened to be president, I would lead a significant campaign down at the grassroots level to stomp these drugs out of our country.”
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: “Could be OK with” limited access to medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana.
• MPP rating: C-
Jindal has said that he would “bring down the hammer” on marijuana dispensaries that are operating in states that have legalized the plant, citing federal law.
“I don’t think anyone should be legalizing marijuana, I think that’s a mistake,” Jindal told ABC News. “When it comes to the issue of medical marijuana, I’ve said as long as it’s done under tight restrictions, I can be okay with that.”
Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes.
• Position on pot: Opposes to legalizing marijuana for recreational or medical use.
• MPP grade: F
Santorum is opposed to marijuana legalization in any purpose and thinks the federal government has the right to supersede state laws on the issue.
At an event in January 2012, he said, “The federal government does have a role in making sure that drug use- that states don’t go out and legalize drugs. That there are drugs that are hazardous to people, that do cause great harm to the individual as well as society to the whole.”
Santorum says that he smoked marijuana in college but wishes he had not.
“I admitted back when I was running for the Senate that when I was in college that I smoked pot and that that was something that you know I did when I was in college,“ Santorum once said on CNN. "It was something that I’m not proud of but I did.”
Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Open to states experimenting with legalization.
• MPP grade: B-
Huckabee is taking a wait-and-see approach to legalization, pledging he would not interfere with state-level laws as president.
“Let’s let Colorado have at it for a few years and let’s see how that works out for them,” the former Arkansas governor said in an interview with KCCI-TV in Iowa earlier this month. “I’m willing to let states operate under the 10th Amendment, and I’m willing for the states, if they think that marijuana and the legalization of it is a great thing, you know, I’m willing for them to experiment and find out. And it if it works and it turns out that the presence of recreational marijuana makes them a more prosperous state … well heck, we may just all want to reach out there and grab that.”
Those remarks led the Marijuana Policy Project to upgrade Huckabee’s “D” rating to a “B minus.”
But Huckabee is personally opposed legalization, and has questioned the logic of those who support it.
“What is a young person supposed to think when the state says, ‘Don’t do drugs … even though everyone around you is and the same authority figures who tell you it’s bad not only condone it, but are also making a big profit off it?‘” he wrote on Facebook.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes, but "it wasn’t for me.”
• Position on pot: Open to legalization.
• MPP grade: A
Sanders has said he tried marijuana once or twice and didn’t like it. But Bernie became the first-ever major party presidential candidate to express support for legalization.
During the first Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Sanders was asked if he would vote to legalize recreational marijuana.
“I suspect I would vote yes,” Sanders said. “I would vote yes because I am seeing in this country too many lives being destroyed for non-violent offenses. We have a criminal justice system that lets CEOs on Wall Street walk away, and yet we are imprisoning or giving jail sentences to young people who are smoking marijuana.”
Sanders elaborated on his pot position last week during an appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”
“We have large numbers of lives that have been destroyed because of this war on drugs and because people were caught smoking marijuana and so forth,” Sanders said. “I think we have got to end the war on drugs. I am not unfavorably disposed to moving toward the legalization of marijuana.”
For that, Sanders received an “A” rating from the Marijuana Policy Project — the highest grade of any presidential candidate.
Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state
• Ever smoke marijuana? No.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana “under appropriate circumstances.”
• MPP grade: B
While her husband uttered the most infamous response to the pot question (“I didn’t inhale”) in American political history, Hillary Clinton says she has never tried marijuana.
“I didn’t do it when I was young,“ Clinton told CNN last year. "I’m not going to start now.”
The former secretary supports the use of medical marijuana, but more research is needed.
“I think we need to be very clear about the benefits of marijuana use for medicinal purposes,” she said. “I don’t think we’ve done enough research yet.”
As far as recreational weed, Clinton says she wants to see how it works in Colorado and Washington before she endorses legalization on the national level.
"I think that we have the opportunity through the states that are pursuing recreational marijuana to find out a lot more than we know today,” she said during the first Democratic debate. “I think we’re just at the beginning, but I agree completely with the idea that we have got to stop imprisoning people who use marijuana.”
But in July, she said this: “I think the feds should be attuned to the way marijuana is still used as a gateway drug and how the drug cartels from Latin America use marijuana to get footholds in states, so there can’t be a total absence of law enforcement, but what I want to see, and I think we should be much more focused on this, is really doing good research so we know what it is we’re approving.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Marijuana Policy Project works to end the government's war on marijuana users. Therefore the candidates they grade ‘F’ would get an ‘A’ from me. Here are my grades:
Chris Christie A+
Jeb Bush A
Ben Carson B
Marco Rubio B
Hillary Clinton B-
Ted Cruz C
Mike Huckabee C
Rand Paul F
Bernie Sanders F
By Dylan Stableford and Michael Walsh
Yahoo News
October 28, 2015
When the candidates take the stage in Boulder, Colo., on Wednesday night for the third Republican debate, they will do so in a state that effectively became the premiere test case for America’s foray into drug legalization when it became the first to regulate the sale of recreational marijuana more than 19 months ago.
A Gallup poll released last week shows a majority of Americans continue to support that effort, with 58 percent saying pot use should be legal in the United States.
So where does the crop of 2016 presidential candidates stand on the marijuana issue?
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul
• Ever smoke marijuana? Sounds like it.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana, access to banking services, right for states to decide
• MPP (Marijuana Policy Project) grade: A-
Paul is the most vocal critic of the so-called “war on drugs” in the GOP field.
The libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator has been outspoken in his support of medical marijuana, decriminalization of marijuana and keeping the federal government out of heady state-level politics like the legalization.
“If your kid was caught selling marijuana or growing enough that it’s a felony conviction, they could be in jail for an extended period of time — they also lose their ability to be employable,“ Paul told a local Kentucky television station last year. "I want to change all of that. I want to lessen the criminal penalties on it.”
In March, Paul joined Democratic Sens. Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand in introducing a historic bipartisan bill that would end the federal ban on medical marijuana, allowing “patients, doctors and businesses in states that have already passed medical marijuana laws to participate in those programs without fear of federal prosecution.”
In an interview with Yahoo News’ Katie Couric, Paul called out Bush for his opposition to Florida’s medical marijuana initiative.
“If you’ve got MS in Florida, Jeb Bush voted to put you in jail if you go to a local drugstore and get medical marijuana,” he said. “Yet he was doing it for recreational purposes, and it’s a different standard for him because he was from a very wealthy family going to a wealthy school, and he got off scot-free.”
In June, Paul hosted a VIP reception for campaign donors at the National Cannabis Industry Association’s second annual Cannabis Business Summit and Expo in Denver, where he fielded questions from about 40 people on his support of federal medical marijuana and allowing states to determine their own cannabis laws, among other weed-centric issues, according to the NCIA.
A month later, he joined the bipartisan effort to give America’s legal marijuana industry access to banking services, co-sponsoring the Marijuana Businesses Access to Banking Act of 2015, in the Senate.
As for his own use?
“Let’s just say I wasn’t a choirboy when I was in college,” Paul said in an interview with WHAS-TV. “I can recognize that kids make mistakes, and I can say that I made mistakes when I was a kid.”
The Marijuana Policy Project, a pro-pot lobbying group that is rating the 2016 candidates based on marijuana policy, gave Paul an "A-” — the highest grade among any of 15 remaining the Republican hopefuls.
Jeb Bush, former Florida governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes — and he’s sorry about it, mom.
• Position on pot: Opposes legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
During the second Republican presidential debate, Bush said he smoked pot in high school.
“Forty years ago, I smoked marijuana, and I admit it,” Bush. “I’m sure that other people might have done it and may not want to say it in front of 25 million people. My mom’s not happy that I just did.”
“Sorry Mom,” Bush tweeted shortly after his admission.
But the former Florida governor also said legalization should be left up to the states.
“What goes on in Colorado, as far as I’m concerned, that should be a state decision,” Bush said. “But if you look at the problem of drugs in this — in this society today, it’s a serious problem.”
Bush pointed to the heroin epidemic in states like Vermont and New Hampshire, saying the federal government should “play a consistent role” in providing treatment and prevention programs.
“People’s families are being torn apart,” he said. “In Florida, there are drug courts to give people a second chance.”
But Bush has taken a hard-line approach when it comes to legalization. Last fall, he released a statement urging Florida voters to reject a ballot initiative that would have legalized medical marijuana in the Sunshine State.
“Allowing large-scale, marijuana operations to take root across Florida, under the guise of using it for medicinal purposes, runs counter” to efforts to make Florida “a world-class location to start or run a business, a family-friendly destination for tourism and a desirable place to raise a family or retire,” Bush said.
A majority of Florida voters (57 percent) disagreed, but the measure fell short of the 60 percent approval it needed to pass.
Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard chief executive
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear
• Position on pot: Supports decriminalization, but not much else.
• MPP grade: C+
During the second Republican presidential debate, Fiorina used the issue of marijuana legalization to pivot to a personal story about her stepdaughter, Lori, who died in 2009 after struggling with alcohol, prescription pills and bulimia.
“I very much hope I am the only person on this stage who can say this, but I know there are millions of Americans out there who will say the same thing,” Fiorina said. “My husband Frank and I buried a child to drug addiction. So, we must invest more in the treatment of drugs.”
Fiorina says she supports allowing individual states to determine their own marijuana laws, but she has personal reservations about pot use.
“We are misleading young people when we tell them that marijuana is just like having a beer. It’s not,” she said. “And the marijuana that kids are smoking today is not the same as the marijuana that Jeb Bush smoked 40 years ago.”
The former Hewlett-Packard chief executive called for criminal justice reform.
“We do need criminal justice reform,” she said. “We have the highest incarceration rates in the world. Two-thirds of the people in our prisons are there for non-violent offenses, mostly drug related. It’s clearly not working. But we need to tell young people the truth. Drug addiction is an epidemic, and it is taking too many of our young people. I know this sadly from personal experience.”
Donald Trump
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports legalizing medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana.
• MPP grade: C
Back in 1990, real estate developer Donald Trump said that the U.S. would have to legalize all drugs to win the war on drugs by taking the profits from the “drug czars.”
But Trump moved considerably to the right on the issue.
“I’d say [regulating marijuana] is bad. Medical marijuana is another thing,” he said on C-SPAN in February, “but I think it’s bad and I feel strongly about that.”
When confronted with a states’ rights argument, Trump responded, “If they vote for it, they vote for it. But, you know, they’ve got a lot of problems going on in Colorado right now. Big problems. But I think, medical marijuana, 100 percent.”
He has trolled Bush for his admitted past marijuana use by implying that the government might still enjoy a puff from time to time.
Ben Carson, retired neurosurgeon
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana in “compassionate cases,” but not recreational marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
Carson says that medical marijuana can be helpful for patients under certain circumstances but does not support legalizing the plant, calling it a gateway drug.
“I think medical use of marijuana in compassionate cases certainly has been proven to be useful,” the retired neurosurgeon said in a recent interview with Fox News. “But recognize that marijuana is what’s known as a gateway drug. It tends to be a starter drug for people who move onto heavier duty drugs – sometimes legal, sometimes illegal – and I don’t think this is something that we really want for our society.”
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio
• Ever smoke marijuana? “If I tell you that I haven’t, you won’t believe me.”
• Position on pot: Supports limited legalization of medical marijuana.
• MPP grade: D
Rubio is nearly as vocal in his opposition to legalization as Christie.
In April, he said he would roll back marijuana laws enacted in states like Colorado.
“I think we need to enforce our federal laws,” Rubio told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. States have their rights,“ Rubio said, but they don’t have a right to rewrite federal policy.
"I don’t believe we should be in the business of legalizing additional intoxicants in this country for the primary reason that when you legalize something, what you’re sending [is] a message to young people [that] it can’t be that bad,” Rubio said. “Because if it was that bad, it wouldn’t be legal.”
In a 2014 interview with the Tampa Bay Times, Rubio did say he supports legalizing medical marijuana — as long as it doesn’t get you high.
“If there are medicinal uses of marijuana that don’t have the elements that are mind-altering or create the high but do alleviate whatever condition it may be they are trying to alleviate, that is something I would be open to,” he said.
Like Bush, Rubio opposed last year’s ballot initiative that would have made medical marijuana legal in Florida.
The Florida senator has also refused to answer whether he ever smoked marijuana.
“If I tell you that I haven’t, you won’t believe me,” Rubio told Fusion in 2014. "And if I tell you that I did, then kids will look up to me and say, ‘Well, I can smoke marijuana because look how he made it. He did all right, so I guess I can do it too.’”
He added: “The bottom line is that it is a substance that alters your mind. Now when I was 17 and 18 and 16, I made dumb decisions as is. I didn’t need the help of marijuana or alcohol to further that.”
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes, "foolishly.”
• Position on pot: Personally opposed, but supports letting the states decide.
• MPP grade: C+
Cruz has shifted positions on the issue of legalization.
But at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February, Cruz said he supports Colorado’s experiment with legalization.
“If the citizens of Colorado decide they want to go down that road, that’s their prerogative,” he said. “I personally don’t agree with it, but that’s their right.”
“I don’t support drug legalization, but I do support the Constitution,“ Cruz told the Texas Tribune the next month. "I think individual states can choose to adopt it. So if Texas had it on the ballot, I’d vote against it, but I respect the authority of states to follow different policies.”
But in 2014, the Texas senator blasted the Obama administration for not interfering with states like Colorado and Washington on weed.
“The Obama administration’s approach to drug policy is to simply announce that across the country, it is going to stop enforcing certain drug laws,” Cruz told Reason magazine. “Now, that may or may not be a good policy, but I would suggest that should concern anyone — it should even concern libertarians who support that policy outcome — because the idea that the president simply says criminal laws that are on the books, we’re going to ignore [them]. That is a very dangerous precedent.
“Anyone who is concerned about liberty should be concerned about the notion that this president, over and over again, has asserted the right to pick and choose what laws to follow,” Cruz continued. “That is fundamentally dangerous to the liberty of the people.”
Like Bush, Cruz smoked pot when he was a teenager.
“Teenagers are often known for their lack of judgment, and Sen. Cruz was no exception,” a Cruz spokesperson told the Daily Mail. “When he was a teenager, he foolishly experimented with marijuana. It was a mistake, and he’s never tried it since.”
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
• Ever smoke marijuana? “The answer is no.”
• Position on pot: Opposes legalization, will roll back laws in states like Colorado.
• MPP grade: F
Among all the GOP presidential candidates, Christie is the most unwavering in his opposition to marijuana legalization — and says he’ll enforce the federal laws against it as president.
The New Jersey governor says his opposition to legal weed is reaffirmed every time he visits Colorado.
“For the people who are enamored with the idea, with the income — the tax revenue — from this, go to Colorado and see if you want to live there,” Christie said in April 2014. “See if you want to live in a major city in Colorado where there’s head shops popping up on every corner and people flying into your airport just to come and get high. To me, it’s just not the quality of life we want to have here in the state of New Jersey, and there’s no tax revenue that’s worth that.”
The governor likes to boast that New Jersey is the first state in the nation to mandate that non-violent, non-dealing drug users be sent to treatment for their first offense rather than jail.
But "that doesn’t mean we should be legalizing gateway drugs,” he said during last month’s Republican presidential debate.
“I think it sends a wrong message to our kids,“ Christie said on his radio show last year. "And I don’t think it makes anybody a better or more productive person.”
In April, Christie was asked by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt if he would force states to end regulation.
“Absolutely,” he said bluntly. “I will crack down and not permit it.”
In 2012, Christie was asked on Twitter if he had ever gotten high.
“The answer is no,” the governor tweeted.
Not surprisingly, Christie gets an “F” from the Marijuana Policy Project — the lowest grade among any of the 2016 candidates.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: “Totally opposed” to recreational and medical marijuana
• MPP grade: C-
Kasich says that he is opposed to recreational and medical marijuana because it is a “scourge in this country.” When asked about states that have legalized marijuana, he admits that he has not thought about it much.
“I haven’t thought about this. I’d have to give it a little thought,“ Kasich said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show in April. "In my state and across this country, if I happened to be president, I would lead a significant campaign down at the grassroots level to stomp these drugs out of our country.”
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: “Could be OK with” limited access to medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana.
• MPP rating: C-
Jindal has said that he would “bring down the hammer” on marijuana dispensaries that are operating in states that have legalized the plant, citing federal law.
“I don’t think anyone should be legalizing marijuana, I think that’s a mistake,” Jindal told ABC News. “When it comes to the issue of medical marijuana, I’ve said as long as it’s done under tight restrictions, I can be okay with that.”
Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes.
• Position on pot: Opposes to legalizing marijuana for recreational or medical use.
• MPP grade: F
Santorum is opposed to marijuana legalization in any purpose and thinks the federal government has the right to supersede state laws on the issue.
At an event in January 2012, he said, “The federal government does have a role in making sure that drug use- that states don’t go out and legalize drugs. That there are drugs that are hazardous to people, that do cause great harm to the individual as well as society to the whole.”
Santorum says that he smoked marijuana in college but wishes he had not.
“I admitted back when I was running for the Senate that when I was in college that I smoked pot and that that was something that you know I did when I was in college,“ Santorum once said on CNN. "It was something that I’m not proud of but I did.”
Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor
• Ever smoke marijuana? Unclear.
• Position on pot: Open to states experimenting with legalization.
• MPP grade: B-
Huckabee is taking a wait-and-see approach to legalization, pledging he would not interfere with state-level laws as president.
“Let’s let Colorado have at it for a few years and let’s see how that works out for them,” the former Arkansas governor said in an interview with KCCI-TV in Iowa earlier this month. “I’m willing to let states operate under the 10th Amendment, and I’m willing for the states, if they think that marijuana and the legalization of it is a great thing, you know, I’m willing for them to experiment and find out. And it if it works and it turns out that the presence of recreational marijuana makes them a more prosperous state … well heck, we may just all want to reach out there and grab that.”
Those remarks led the Marijuana Policy Project to upgrade Huckabee’s “D” rating to a “B minus.”
But Huckabee is personally opposed legalization, and has questioned the logic of those who support it.
“What is a young person supposed to think when the state says, ‘Don’t do drugs … even though everyone around you is and the same authority figures who tell you it’s bad not only condone it, but are also making a big profit off it?‘” he wrote on Facebook.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
• Ever smoke marijuana? Yes, but "it wasn’t for me.”
• Position on pot: Open to legalization.
• MPP grade: A
Sanders has said he tried marijuana once or twice and didn’t like it. But Bernie became the first-ever major party presidential candidate to express support for legalization.
During the first Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Sanders was asked if he would vote to legalize recreational marijuana.
“I suspect I would vote yes,” Sanders said. “I would vote yes because I am seeing in this country too many lives being destroyed for non-violent offenses. We have a criminal justice system that lets CEOs on Wall Street walk away, and yet we are imprisoning or giving jail sentences to young people who are smoking marijuana.”
Sanders elaborated on his pot position last week during an appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”
“We have large numbers of lives that have been destroyed because of this war on drugs and because people were caught smoking marijuana and so forth,” Sanders said. “I think we have got to end the war on drugs. I am not unfavorably disposed to moving toward the legalization of marijuana.”
For that, Sanders received an “A” rating from the Marijuana Policy Project — the highest grade of any presidential candidate.
Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state
• Ever smoke marijuana? No.
• Position on pot: Supports medical marijuana “under appropriate circumstances.”
• MPP grade: B
While her husband uttered the most infamous response to the pot question (“I didn’t inhale”) in American political history, Hillary Clinton says she has never tried marijuana.
“I didn’t do it when I was young,“ Clinton told CNN last year. "I’m not going to start now.”
The former secretary supports the use of medical marijuana, but more research is needed.
“I think we need to be very clear about the benefits of marijuana use for medicinal purposes,” she said. “I don’t think we’ve done enough research yet.”
As far as recreational weed, Clinton says she wants to see how it works in Colorado and Washington before she endorses legalization on the national level.
"I think that we have the opportunity through the states that are pursuing recreational marijuana to find out a lot more than we know today,” she said during the first Democratic debate. “I think we’re just at the beginning, but I agree completely with the idea that we have got to stop imprisoning people who use marijuana.”
But in July, she said this: “I think the feds should be attuned to the way marijuana is still used as a gateway drug and how the drug cartels from Latin America use marijuana to get footholds in states, so there can’t be a total absence of law enforcement, but what I want to see, and I think we should be much more focused on this, is really doing good research so we know what it is we’re approving.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Marijuana Policy Project works to end the government's war on marijuana users. Therefore the candidates they grade ‘F’ would get an ‘A’ from me. Here are my grades:
Chris Christie A+
Jeb Bush A
Ben Carson B
Marco Rubio B
Hillary Clinton B-
Ted Cruz C
Mike Huckabee C
Rand Paul F
Bernie Sanders F
SANDERS SAYS HE’D REMOVE MARIJUANA FROM FEDERAL DRUG LIST
By Ken Thomas
Associated Press
October 28, 2015
FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Wednesday if elected president he would seek to remove marijuana from a list of drugs deemed illegal by the federal government, freeing up states to regulate pot like alcohol or tobacco.
The Democratic presidential candidate said the nation's massive prison population and more than 600,000 arrests last year for marijuana possession demands a shift in the country's drug laws. He said the problem has a racial disparity as well — a black person is nearly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than a white person.
"Too many Americans have seen their lives destroyed because they have criminal records as a result of marijuana use. That's wrong. That has got to change," Sanders said at a town hall meeting in Virginia with college students at George Mason University. The event was broadcast online to gatherings on 300 campuses in 50 states.
Under the plan, states would have the right to regulate marijuana the same way that state and local laws currently govern the sale of alcohol and tobacco. It would allow businesses in states that have legalized marijuana to use the banking system without fear of federal prosecution.
The senator would call for marijuana to be removed from the so-called Schedule 1 of controlled substances regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Sanders' policy proposal, which was first reported by The Washington Post, separates him from Democratic rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Martin O'Malley. Clinton has said she wants to see how the legalization of recreational marijuana plays out in states like Colorado and Washington. O'Malley wants to reclassify marijuana under federal drug laws and make it a so-called Schedule 2 drug, similar to cocaine.
Schedule 1 drugs are considered to have a greater potential for abuse and pose a safety issue.
The issue has played a minor role in the Democratic primary campaign so far. In the first debate in Las Vegas last month, Clinton noted her support of medical marijuana and backed stopping the imprisonment of people who use marijuana. Sanders signaled support for a Nevada proposal legalizing recreational marijuana use next year.
Four states have legalized recreational marijuana: Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska. Under the Sanders plan, people in states which legalize marijuana would no longer be subject to federal prosecution for using pot.
The senator said if some states went forward, it could lead to new revenues for states that could be used to fight the effects of substance abuse from drugs like heroin that have ravaged communities.
"It is time to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. It is time to end the arrests of so many people and the destruction of so many lives for possessing marijuana," Sanders said.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Fuck Bernie Sanders!
Associated Press
October 28, 2015
FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Wednesday if elected president he would seek to remove marijuana from a list of drugs deemed illegal by the federal government, freeing up states to regulate pot like alcohol or tobacco.
The Democratic presidential candidate said the nation's massive prison population and more than 600,000 arrests last year for marijuana possession demands a shift in the country's drug laws. He said the problem has a racial disparity as well — a black person is nearly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than a white person.
"Too many Americans have seen their lives destroyed because they have criminal records as a result of marijuana use. That's wrong. That has got to change," Sanders said at a town hall meeting in Virginia with college students at George Mason University. The event was broadcast online to gatherings on 300 campuses in 50 states.
Under the plan, states would have the right to regulate marijuana the same way that state and local laws currently govern the sale of alcohol and tobacco. It would allow businesses in states that have legalized marijuana to use the banking system without fear of federal prosecution.
The senator would call for marijuana to be removed from the so-called Schedule 1 of controlled substances regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Sanders' policy proposal, which was first reported by The Washington Post, separates him from Democratic rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Martin O'Malley. Clinton has said she wants to see how the legalization of recreational marijuana plays out in states like Colorado and Washington. O'Malley wants to reclassify marijuana under federal drug laws and make it a so-called Schedule 2 drug, similar to cocaine.
Schedule 1 drugs are considered to have a greater potential for abuse and pose a safety issue.
The issue has played a minor role in the Democratic primary campaign so far. In the first debate in Las Vegas last month, Clinton noted her support of medical marijuana and backed stopping the imprisonment of people who use marijuana. Sanders signaled support for a Nevada proposal legalizing recreational marijuana use next year.
Four states have legalized recreational marijuana: Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska. Under the Sanders plan, people in states which legalize marijuana would no longer be subject to federal prosecution for using pot.
The senator said if some states went forward, it could lead to new revenues for states that could be used to fight the effects of substance abuse from drugs like heroin that have ravaged communities.
"It is time to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. It is time to end the arrests of so many people and the destruction of so many lives for possessing marijuana," Sanders said.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Fuck Bernie Sanders!
Thursday, October 29, 2015
WE CAN BE TRACKED ANYTIME UNLESS WE LIVE OFF THE GRID
Should cops be forced to release ALPR records?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California, having lost in the lower courts, filed their opening brief with the California Supreme Court late Monday, forcefully arguing that the millions of automated license plate reader records gathered automatically by police throughout the Golden State are not records of investigation. If they succed, California law enforcement agencies wii be forced to release all ALPR records.
Here is the reaction of a retired Texas state police official:
They are not records of an investigation until a hit comes up during an investigation.
License plates are public record used to identify vehicles. If civil liberties are being violated by reading license plates, maybe they should not be issued to vehicles.
Are they suing the toll roads too?
That would save a lot of money for the drivers and take a lot of money from the state.
Then we should make sure that no smart phones can be tracked by GPS. If you have a smart phone, I can locate you.
Let's also take all the GPS units and OnStar devices from vehicles. They can also be tracked by police and private companies.
While we're at it, we better unplug all smart televisions. We don't want to be observed sitting around the living room in our underwear.
The fact of the matter is, you can be tracked anytime unless you live off the grid and that's almost impossible to do.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California, having lost in the lower courts, filed their opening brief with the California Supreme Court late Monday, forcefully arguing that the millions of automated license plate reader records gathered automatically by police throughout the Golden State are not records of investigation. If they succed, California law enforcement agencies wii be forced to release all ALPR records.
Here is the reaction of a retired Texas state police official:
They are not records of an investigation until a hit comes up during an investigation.
License plates are public record used to identify vehicles. If civil liberties are being violated by reading license plates, maybe they should not be issued to vehicles.
Are they suing the toll roads too?
That would save a lot of money for the drivers and take a lot of money from the state.
Then we should make sure that no smart phones can be tracked by GPS. If you have a smart phone, I can locate you.
Let's also take all the GPS units and OnStar devices from vehicles. They can also be tracked by police and private companies.
While we're at it, we better unplug all smart televisions. We don't want to be observed sitting around the living room in our underwear.
The fact of the matter is, you can be tracked anytime unless you live off the grid and that's almost impossible to do.
U.S. IS DRIVING MIDEAST ALLIES TOWARD PUTIN
By Josh Rogin & Eli Lake
BloombergView
October 26, 2015
America’s traditional Middle East allies, having run out of patience with President Barack Obama's policy in Syria, are now reaching out to a resurgent Russia -- even though it is bolstering the very dictator so many of them have pushed to leave power.
Some in Washington see the new ties as a threat to U.S. interests, especially because the U.S. has worked since the 1970s to keep Russian influence out of the Middle East. But the Obama administration sees an opportunity. The State Department is now quietly encouraging U.S. allies to engage with Moscow, as part of Secretary John Kerry's quest to win Russian support for a political process in Syria.
Kerry is the main U.S. official still arguing for cooperation with Russia to start peace talks that could resolve the Syrian civil war. But the Russian response has been consistently to rebuke Kerry’s offers. Since Kerry began his latest diplomacy push in the spring, the Russians have sent tanks, bombers and soldiers to Syria. The Russian air force has focused its bombing on the U.S.-backed opposition instead of the Islamic State, the terrorists whom Kerry believes present a common enemy for Russia and the U.S.
Nevertheless, Kerry has been pushing forward with his plan to convince Russia to be a partner in stabilizing the Middle East. He convened a meeting in Vienna last Friday between the foreign ministers of Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and expressed optimism the four countries could work together on Syria.
“While we can agree to disagree on what and when might occur with respect to the resolution of the Assad problem, we clearly can agree on a process that helps to bring about a resolution of that question. And that is a very important starting place,” Kerry said.
After the meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in his remarks to the press briefly focused on common objectives Russia shared with the U.S. But Lavrov used the opportunity mainly to launch into a broad criticism of U.S. policy in the region. He complained about the U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya and said that Russia would never support a plan that included regime change in Damascus.
“I have already heard rumors that deals are being or will be made here that in a certain time period President Assad will go,” he said. “All this is not so.”
A senior administration official told us last week that this time around Kerry is trying to start a political process despite the disagreement over Bashar al-Assad. Kerry has said recently that the U.S. could accept Assad remaining in power for a transition period, but the official said the Russians won’t concede to that.
“If we can get into a political process, sometimes these things have a way of resolving themselves,” Kerry said Friday.
But while Kerry focused on convincing Russia to join with the West, Putin has been working to convince America’s Middle East allies that Moscow is the new power in the region.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's former ambassador to Washington and former intelligence chief, said as much Friday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. There he gave President Vladimir Putin credit for outmaneuvering the U.S. and said Russia was now in a position to demand attention and respect.
“Putin is a man who has done so much harm to innocent people throughout the area in Syria. But I must also consider that he is the head of a state, and that state is a big state, and he feels that state should have a decision-making role in the world,” he said. “And we have to deal with him. And it’s not that you ignore him or cast him off as a megalomaniac. He has a vision of the world and a strategy to put that vision in place.”
By hosting Assad in Moscow, Turki said, Putin sent a message to the region that anyone who wishes to oust Assad must go through him. Putin may not be sincere when he says he wants to fight the Islamic State, but the U.S.-led coalition has not committed the resources necessary for the mission either, he said.
While Russia participates in the new U.S.-led discussions over Syria, it is simultaneously striking side deals with U.S. allies to further its military presence there, which the U.S. government has called counterproductive.
On the same day as the Vienna meeting, Russia signed an agreement with Jordan to coordinate militarily against the Islamic State. The next day, Kerry traveled to Jordan and Saudi Arabia to discuss Syria with leaders there. (Putin didn’t have to go to Saudi Arabia; the Saudi defense minister had visited Moscow earlier this month.) And while Kerry was in the region, the government of Iraq announced it had given Russia the green light to begin airstrikes there too, over U.S. objections.
Other gulf states have sent senior diplomats to Moscow in the last two weeks to discuss Russia's recent moves into Syria. One senior Arab diplomat told us that these discussions were mainly to gauge Russia's long-term intentions in Syria and to try to persuade Moscow to bomb Islamic State targets rather than more moderate rebels.
American allies who are not active in multilateral diplomacy over Syria have been establishing closer ties to Moscow as well. This month, after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to see Putin, Israel established a hotline with Russia's military to avoid an accidental confrontation between their forces. After Egyptian President Abdel el-Sisi visited Putin in August, he pledged Egypt would work with Moscow against the Islamic State.
Retired General Jack Keane testified last week that Moscow is betting on U.S. inaction.
“Putin is counting on the United States’ fear of escalation and fear of confrontation to scare off any U.S. retaliation,” Keane said. “We need to continue to push for Assad to go, but lets be realistic. Russia, as Assad’s protector, will now play the decisive role.”
Some within the Obama administration tell us that Putin and Lavrov are leading Kerry on and that the only way Russia would become a constructive partner in Syria would be through coercion, such as sanctions against Putin or more military aid to the rebels Putin is attacking. But the White House is unwilling to escalate pressures against Russia because the guiding principle is to avoid a new crisis with Moscow.
The immediate problem with Kerry's approach is that it forces America’s friends in the region to hedge their bets and move closer to Russia. Over the long term, there is a contradiction in Kerry’s plan. Putin is either the key to a peaceful resolution in Syria or the main obstacle. He can't be both.
BloombergView
October 26, 2015
America’s traditional Middle East allies, having run out of patience with President Barack Obama's policy in Syria, are now reaching out to a resurgent Russia -- even though it is bolstering the very dictator so many of them have pushed to leave power.
Some in Washington see the new ties as a threat to U.S. interests, especially because the U.S. has worked since the 1970s to keep Russian influence out of the Middle East. But the Obama administration sees an opportunity. The State Department is now quietly encouraging U.S. allies to engage with Moscow, as part of Secretary John Kerry's quest to win Russian support for a political process in Syria.
Kerry is the main U.S. official still arguing for cooperation with Russia to start peace talks that could resolve the Syrian civil war. But the Russian response has been consistently to rebuke Kerry’s offers. Since Kerry began his latest diplomacy push in the spring, the Russians have sent tanks, bombers and soldiers to Syria. The Russian air force has focused its bombing on the U.S.-backed opposition instead of the Islamic State, the terrorists whom Kerry believes present a common enemy for Russia and the U.S.
Nevertheless, Kerry has been pushing forward with his plan to convince Russia to be a partner in stabilizing the Middle East. He convened a meeting in Vienna last Friday between the foreign ministers of Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and expressed optimism the four countries could work together on Syria.
“While we can agree to disagree on what and when might occur with respect to the resolution of the Assad problem, we clearly can agree on a process that helps to bring about a resolution of that question. And that is a very important starting place,” Kerry said.
After the meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in his remarks to the press briefly focused on common objectives Russia shared with the U.S. But Lavrov used the opportunity mainly to launch into a broad criticism of U.S. policy in the region. He complained about the U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya and said that Russia would never support a plan that included regime change in Damascus.
“I have already heard rumors that deals are being or will be made here that in a certain time period President Assad will go,” he said. “All this is not so.”
A senior administration official told us last week that this time around Kerry is trying to start a political process despite the disagreement over Bashar al-Assad. Kerry has said recently that the U.S. could accept Assad remaining in power for a transition period, but the official said the Russians won’t concede to that.
“If we can get into a political process, sometimes these things have a way of resolving themselves,” Kerry said Friday.
But while Kerry focused on convincing Russia to join with the West, Putin has been working to convince America’s Middle East allies that Moscow is the new power in the region.
Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's former ambassador to Washington and former intelligence chief, said as much Friday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. There he gave President Vladimir Putin credit for outmaneuvering the U.S. and said Russia was now in a position to demand attention and respect.
“Putin is a man who has done so much harm to innocent people throughout the area in Syria. But I must also consider that he is the head of a state, and that state is a big state, and he feels that state should have a decision-making role in the world,” he said. “And we have to deal with him. And it’s not that you ignore him or cast him off as a megalomaniac. He has a vision of the world and a strategy to put that vision in place.”
By hosting Assad in Moscow, Turki said, Putin sent a message to the region that anyone who wishes to oust Assad must go through him. Putin may not be sincere when he says he wants to fight the Islamic State, but the U.S.-led coalition has not committed the resources necessary for the mission either, he said.
While Russia participates in the new U.S.-led discussions over Syria, it is simultaneously striking side deals with U.S. allies to further its military presence there, which the U.S. government has called counterproductive.
On the same day as the Vienna meeting, Russia signed an agreement with Jordan to coordinate militarily against the Islamic State. The next day, Kerry traveled to Jordan and Saudi Arabia to discuss Syria with leaders there. (Putin didn’t have to go to Saudi Arabia; the Saudi defense minister had visited Moscow earlier this month.) And while Kerry was in the region, the government of Iraq announced it had given Russia the green light to begin airstrikes there too, over U.S. objections.
Other gulf states have sent senior diplomats to Moscow in the last two weeks to discuss Russia's recent moves into Syria. One senior Arab diplomat told us that these discussions were mainly to gauge Russia's long-term intentions in Syria and to try to persuade Moscow to bomb Islamic State targets rather than more moderate rebels.
American allies who are not active in multilateral diplomacy over Syria have been establishing closer ties to Moscow as well. This month, after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to see Putin, Israel established a hotline with Russia's military to avoid an accidental confrontation between their forces. After Egyptian President Abdel el-Sisi visited Putin in August, he pledged Egypt would work with Moscow against the Islamic State.
Retired General Jack Keane testified last week that Moscow is betting on U.S. inaction.
“Putin is counting on the United States’ fear of escalation and fear of confrontation to scare off any U.S. retaliation,” Keane said. “We need to continue to push for Assad to go, but lets be realistic. Russia, as Assad’s protector, will now play the decisive role.”
Some within the Obama administration tell us that Putin and Lavrov are leading Kerry on and that the only way Russia would become a constructive partner in Syria would be through coercion, such as sanctions against Putin or more military aid to the rebels Putin is attacking. But the White House is unwilling to escalate pressures against Russia because the guiding principle is to avoid a new crisis with Moscow.
The immediate problem with Kerry's approach is that it forces America’s friends in the region to hedge their bets and move closer to Russia. Over the long term, there is a contradiction in Kerry’s plan. Putin is either the key to a peaceful resolution in Syria or the main obstacle. He can't be both.
RESIDENTS IN THREE MEXICAN TOWNS TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST CRIMINALS
“Any bastard who is caught stealing is going to be lynched”
By: Manuel Vázquez
AFondoEdoMex
October 27, 2015
Amecameca, Mexico October 26, 2015— Residents from three locations located in the volcano area took security into their own hands in their communities; carrying out armed guard duty.
Residents of Santa Isabel Chalma and San Francisco Zentlalpan, villages belonging to the municipality of Amecameca, and San Antonio Tlaltecahuacán, of the municipality of Tlalmanalco, have carried out guard duty since last week along the main entrances of the communities in order to keep out assailants.
In Santa Isabel Chalma, armed with shotguns, machetes, and farm tools, villagers roam the streets and placed checkpoints in order to detect the presence of assailants and suspicious people.
They warned that justice will be done with the first thief that they arrest and rejected the order of the director of the municipal police of Amecameca to suspend their vigilance.
“We’ll do it as long as necessary, until we catch a thief or put an end to so many assaults on the streets, we’ve had it up to here, the assailants don’t respect anyone in the village,” said José, a 53 year old farmer and one of the leaders of the movement.
In San Antonio Tlaltecahuacán, the neighbors of the warnings passed the events and from Friday, October 23, night guards began armed with weapons and tools that they used in the fields in order to confront criminals.
On Friday night, around 30 neighbors set up checkpoints on the main entrance, where the highest number of assaults has taken place against men and women returning or leaving their jobs and school.
In San Francisco Zentlalpan, more than 100 residents of the community of San Francisco Zentlalpan met last Saturday in order to organize against the increasing state of insecurity.
Robberies, assaults, and car thefts are crimes that people have suffered through at the hands of individuals aboard a white Tsuru.
Last Wednesday, a university student who came from the Federal District and was walking down the street Progreso, at the entrance of the village, was caught by a subject on a motorcycle who signaled him to stop and behind the motorcycle was a white Tsuru. Three individuals stepped out leaving a man and a woman inside.
The individuals who carry out the attacks have not been identified by their victims since they wear balaclavas and carry guns. The residents affected hand over their belongings for fear of being hurt and run away from the place.
German Guzmán Segura, who is the second delegate from the village, said that the people are tired of the insecurity and the authorities do nothing about it, for example in recent days, electricians from the Federal Commission of Electricity cut power to several lamps that illuminate the stop at the entrance of the village.
Braulio MartÃnez, who is the director of the municipal police, attended the meeting that was organized by the neighbors. He promised to leave a permanent patrol vehicle for the municipality and the village of Aldea de los Reyes and that he would send a patrol vehicle for support while carrying out patrols along the main streets.
Neighbors didn’t comply with what the director offered them; they decided to start organizing for patrols in various parts of the municipality to protect the people.
“Any bastard who is caught stealing is going to be lynched,” said the neighbors.
Update
A day after the first article was published, at 8:42 today, Tuesday, October 27, 2015, three assailants who were going to be lynched were “rescued”. The residents managed to trap three assailants who were responsible for the assassination of a youth who sold videogames. The police arrived and one of the assailants managed to escape. Residents were furious at the police for rescuing the assailants so they burned one of their patrol cars.
By: Manuel Vázquez
AFondoEdoMex
October 27, 2015
Amecameca, Mexico October 26, 2015— Residents from three locations located in the volcano area took security into their own hands in their communities; carrying out armed guard duty.
Residents of Santa Isabel Chalma and San Francisco Zentlalpan, villages belonging to the municipality of Amecameca, and San Antonio Tlaltecahuacán, of the municipality of Tlalmanalco, have carried out guard duty since last week along the main entrances of the communities in order to keep out assailants.
In Santa Isabel Chalma, armed with shotguns, machetes, and farm tools, villagers roam the streets and placed checkpoints in order to detect the presence of assailants and suspicious people.
They warned that justice will be done with the first thief that they arrest and rejected the order of the director of the municipal police of Amecameca to suspend their vigilance.
“We’ll do it as long as necessary, until we catch a thief or put an end to so many assaults on the streets, we’ve had it up to here, the assailants don’t respect anyone in the village,” said José, a 53 year old farmer and one of the leaders of the movement.
In San Antonio Tlaltecahuacán, the neighbors of the warnings passed the events and from Friday, October 23, night guards began armed with weapons and tools that they used in the fields in order to confront criminals.
On Friday night, around 30 neighbors set up checkpoints on the main entrance, where the highest number of assaults has taken place against men and women returning or leaving their jobs and school.
In San Francisco Zentlalpan, more than 100 residents of the community of San Francisco Zentlalpan met last Saturday in order to organize against the increasing state of insecurity.
Robberies, assaults, and car thefts are crimes that people have suffered through at the hands of individuals aboard a white Tsuru.
Last Wednesday, a university student who came from the Federal District and was walking down the street Progreso, at the entrance of the village, was caught by a subject on a motorcycle who signaled him to stop and behind the motorcycle was a white Tsuru. Three individuals stepped out leaving a man and a woman inside.
The individuals who carry out the attacks have not been identified by their victims since they wear balaclavas and carry guns. The residents affected hand over their belongings for fear of being hurt and run away from the place.
German Guzmán Segura, who is the second delegate from the village, said that the people are tired of the insecurity and the authorities do nothing about it, for example in recent days, electricians from the Federal Commission of Electricity cut power to several lamps that illuminate the stop at the entrance of the village.
Braulio MartÃnez, who is the director of the municipal police, attended the meeting that was organized by the neighbors. He promised to leave a permanent patrol vehicle for the municipality and the village of Aldea de los Reyes and that he would send a patrol vehicle for support while carrying out patrols along the main streets.
Neighbors didn’t comply with what the director offered them; they decided to start organizing for patrols in various parts of the municipality to protect the people.
“Any bastard who is caught stealing is going to be lynched,” said the neighbors.
Update
A day after the first article was published, at 8:42 today, Tuesday, October 27, 2015, three assailants who were going to be lynched were “rescued”. The residents managed to trap three assailants who were responsible for the assassination of a youth who sold videogames. The police arrived and one of the assailants managed to escape. Residents were furious at the police for rescuing the assailants so they burned one of their patrol cars.
AMBUSHES OF POLICE ARE RISING AGAIN AT A DIFFICULT TIME FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
By Timothy M. Phelps
Los Angeles Times
October 27, 2015
The number of ambushes of police officers has been creeping back up in recent years, creating concern among law enforcement officials at a time when relations between police and the communities they serve are particularly fraught.
The number of surprise assaults on police rose to about 250 incidents per year between 2008 and 2013, up from about 200 per year during the previous 10-year period, according to a Justice Department study released Tuesday. Those figures were still far lower than in the 1990s, when ambushes peaked one year above 500.
The recent uptick has concerned officials. “In an era of strained community relations and struggles with police legitimacy, violence against police is of particular concern,” said Ronald L. Davis, director of community-oriented policing at the Justice Department.
Police departments in urban areas have come under new scrutiny over their use of force against young black men since the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014.
FBI Director James B. Comey said in a speech last week that police officers may be responding to concerns of being video-recorded by being less aggressive, allowing violent crime to increase. The White House and others quickly discounted that assessment.
The report found a direct correlation between violent crime and ambushes against police, which it defined loosely as both premeditated traps and spontaneous but unexpected attacks. It described ambushes as assaults on police that are executed by surprise, from a position of concealment, and with overwhelming force.
But to the embarrassment of the Justice Department, which has been heavily advocating community-oriented policing, the study also found a small statistical correlation suggesting that the number of ambushes was higher in places with a greater level of community-oriented policing activities.
It called the finding “confounding,” but asserted that “it is not within the realm of any plausible theory that community-oriented policing is a contributing factor to violence against the police.” Rather, it said, the correlation may be due to incomplete data or the fact that such policing techniques tend to be applied in communities where violence is already high.
Factors that lowered the risk of police ambushes were higher education levels among police recruits and the use of cameras mounted on police cars, which provide a deterrent on both officer and citizen behavior, the report said.
While the ambushes cited in the report included both fatal and non-fatal incidents, Davis expressed particular concern about the fatalities.
“We know that the murder of a police officer in the line of duty is an assault on the entire community. However, when that murder is a result of an ambush, it also attacks the very foundation of our democracy,” he said.
Los Angeles Times
October 27, 2015
The number of ambushes of police officers has been creeping back up in recent years, creating concern among law enforcement officials at a time when relations between police and the communities they serve are particularly fraught.
The number of surprise assaults on police rose to about 250 incidents per year between 2008 and 2013, up from about 200 per year during the previous 10-year period, according to a Justice Department study released Tuesday. Those figures were still far lower than in the 1990s, when ambushes peaked one year above 500.
The recent uptick has concerned officials. “In an era of strained community relations and struggles with police legitimacy, violence against police is of particular concern,” said Ronald L. Davis, director of community-oriented policing at the Justice Department.
Police departments in urban areas have come under new scrutiny over their use of force against young black men since the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., in August 2014.
FBI Director James B. Comey said in a speech last week that police officers may be responding to concerns of being video-recorded by being less aggressive, allowing violent crime to increase. The White House and others quickly discounted that assessment.
The report found a direct correlation between violent crime and ambushes against police, which it defined loosely as both premeditated traps and spontaneous but unexpected attacks. It described ambushes as assaults on police that are executed by surprise, from a position of concealment, and with overwhelming force.
But to the embarrassment of the Justice Department, which has been heavily advocating community-oriented policing, the study also found a small statistical correlation suggesting that the number of ambushes was higher in places with a greater level of community-oriented policing activities.
It called the finding “confounding,” but asserted that “it is not within the realm of any plausible theory that community-oriented policing is a contributing factor to violence against the police.” Rather, it said, the correlation may be due to incomplete data or the fact that such policing techniques tend to be applied in communities where violence is already high.
Factors that lowered the risk of police ambushes were higher education levels among police recruits and the use of cameras mounted on police cars, which provide a deterrent on both officer and citizen behavior, the report said.
While the ambushes cited in the report included both fatal and non-fatal incidents, Davis expressed particular concern about the fatalities.
“We know that the murder of a police officer in the line of duty is an assault on the entire community. However, when that murder is a result of an ambush, it also attacks the very foundation of our democracy,” he said.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
CITY COUNCILWOMAN WANTS OAKLAND PD TO HIRE DUMBASS BLACKS
Desley Brooks wants Oakland PD to lower the passing score to 42 for its written applicant exam so that more blacks will qualify to become cops
Police Magazine reports that Oakland city councilwoman Desley Brooks wants the city to hire more blacks as police officers. She is upset that only 20 percent of Oakland’s police force is black when blacks make up 28 percent of the city’s population. Brooks is asking Oakland PD to lower the passing score to 42 for its written applicant exam so that more blacks will qualify to become cops.
A passing score of 42? Why even have a written exam at all? Oakland PD had already lowered the passing score to 45 so that more blacks would pass the exam.
Brooks would like to see the exam eliminated from the officer selection process because she found out that even with a passing score as low as 45, blacks “fail the written exam more often than they fail the physical abilities test.” She wants Oakland Pd to “allow applicants to take a course in its place.”
Take a course in place of the written exam? What kind of a course? How about a course in how to kick ass and take names? What Brooks wants Oakland PD to do is hire dumbass blacks as cops.
State law enforcement commission consultant Alex Blaylock warned that “the Oakland PD will risk hiring officers who cannot fill out an incident report or understand the very laws they are supposed to enforce if they lower standards further.”
With a passing score of only 45, I don’t see how those dumbasses can do that now.
I’ve taken two police applicant exams and passed them easily. In each case, the minimum passing score was 70. Did I pass those exams because I am so smart? No, no! I passed them because anyone with a decent high school education should have passed those exams. The only part I found hard was the memory retention part where after being shown several mug shots with a description of the subject, you were given those descriptions later in the exam and asked to match them up with the correct mug shot.
Ask any cop what he dislikes most about his job and he’ll likely tell you it’s writing those damn police reports. And yet, those reports are crucial to good police work and to the successful prosecution of criminals.
During the probationary field training phase it is not uncommon for a police agency to discover that it has recruited an applicant who cannot write acceptable police reports. Because of all the expense and time expended in the police academy, the recruit who cannot write intelligibly is usually retained rather than dismissed.
Police agencies can do something about those poor writing skills. The Riverside County (California) Sheriff's Department, had a unique way of weeding out applicants who were unable to express themselves well enough to write acceptable police reports.
After submitting an application and before being administered any tests - written, physical, psychological, polygraph - applicants were required to come into the recruitment office to write two one-page essays. In one essay the applicant had to write why they wanted to become a police officer and in the other essay the applicant had to describe the duties of a police officer.
The two essays would then be evaluated by a committee of officers to see if the applicant expressed himself well enough to write acceptable police reports. (Punctuation and spelling were not considered in the evaluation.) If the essays indicated that the applicant would not be able to write intelligible police reports, he/she was informed that his/her application had been rejected. He/she would be encouraged to take remedial writing courses at a local community college and upon completion of the courses, resubmit an application.
A significant number of applicants were rejected in this way. That allowed RCSD to save the time consuming and expensive tests and background checks of applicants who would be unable to write those all-important police reports intelligibly. And while the Al Sharpton types will scream that the writing tests discriminate against minorities, those essays are entirely race and gender neutral.
Retired Riverside County Sheriff Cois Byrd says, “It's a very simple, but honest test.” And he corrected me by adding, “’terribull spellink’ does count, but minor errors are not a cut factor.”
In my experience and my research I have yet to come across a program that beats Riverside's for weeding out unqualified applicants without depending on the usual testing, background checks, etc.
Oakland PD would be wise to adopt Riverside’s method of weeding out dumbass applicants, both whites and minorities, but councilwoman Desley Brooks would throw a fit and never stand for that.
Police Magazine reports that Oakland city councilwoman Desley Brooks wants the city to hire more blacks as police officers. She is upset that only 20 percent of Oakland’s police force is black when blacks make up 28 percent of the city’s population. Brooks is asking Oakland PD to lower the passing score to 42 for its written applicant exam so that more blacks will qualify to become cops.
A passing score of 42? Why even have a written exam at all? Oakland PD had already lowered the passing score to 45 so that more blacks would pass the exam.
Brooks would like to see the exam eliminated from the officer selection process because she found out that even with a passing score as low as 45, blacks “fail the written exam more often than they fail the physical abilities test.” She wants Oakland Pd to “allow applicants to take a course in its place.”
Take a course in place of the written exam? What kind of a course? How about a course in how to kick ass and take names? What Brooks wants Oakland PD to do is hire dumbass blacks as cops.
State law enforcement commission consultant Alex Blaylock warned that “the Oakland PD will risk hiring officers who cannot fill out an incident report or understand the very laws they are supposed to enforce if they lower standards further.”
With a passing score of only 45, I don’t see how those dumbasses can do that now.
I’ve taken two police applicant exams and passed them easily. In each case, the minimum passing score was 70. Did I pass those exams because I am so smart? No, no! I passed them because anyone with a decent high school education should have passed those exams. The only part I found hard was the memory retention part where after being shown several mug shots with a description of the subject, you were given those descriptions later in the exam and asked to match them up with the correct mug shot.
Ask any cop what he dislikes most about his job and he’ll likely tell you it’s writing those damn police reports. And yet, those reports are crucial to good police work and to the successful prosecution of criminals.
During the probationary field training phase it is not uncommon for a police agency to discover that it has recruited an applicant who cannot write acceptable police reports. Because of all the expense and time expended in the police academy, the recruit who cannot write intelligibly is usually retained rather than dismissed.
Police agencies can do something about those poor writing skills. The Riverside County (California) Sheriff's Department, had a unique way of weeding out applicants who were unable to express themselves well enough to write acceptable police reports.
After submitting an application and before being administered any tests - written, physical, psychological, polygraph - applicants were required to come into the recruitment office to write two one-page essays. In one essay the applicant had to write why they wanted to become a police officer and in the other essay the applicant had to describe the duties of a police officer.
The two essays would then be evaluated by a committee of officers to see if the applicant expressed himself well enough to write acceptable police reports. (Punctuation and spelling were not considered in the evaluation.) If the essays indicated that the applicant would not be able to write intelligible police reports, he/she was informed that his/her application had been rejected. He/she would be encouraged to take remedial writing courses at a local community college and upon completion of the courses, resubmit an application.
A significant number of applicants were rejected in this way. That allowed RCSD to save the time consuming and expensive tests and background checks of applicants who would be unable to write those all-important police reports intelligibly. And while the Al Sharpton types will scream that the writing tests discriminate against minorities, those essays are entirely race and gender neutral.
Retired Riverside County Sheriff Cois Byrd says, “It's a very simple, but honest test.” And he corrected me by adding, “’terribull spellink’ does count, but minor errors are not a cut factor.”
In my experience and my research I have yet to come across a program that beats Riverside's for weeding out unqualified applicants without depending on the usual testing, background checks, etc.
Oakland PD would be wise to adopt Riverside’s method of weeding out dumbass applicants, both whites and minorities, but councilwoman Desley Brooks would throw a fit and never stand for that.
BLACK LAPD OFFICER SUES FOR ALLEGEDLY BEING MISTAKEN AS GANG MEMBER IMPERSONATING OFFICER
By Hillary Jackson
MyNewsLA.com
October 26, 2015
A black Los Angeles policeman sued the city Monday, alleging he was retaliated against after complaining that a white colleague pulled him over and detained him twice despite being shown identification, saying he needed to verify the plaintiff’s employment because gang members are known to impersonate LAPD officers.
Lamark Ferguson’s Los Angeles Superior Court complaint seeks unspecified damages. An LAPD spokeswoman declined to comment on the complaint.
The suit states that Ferguson was hired by the LAPD in 2009 and was driving while off-duty in South Los Angeles on Aug. 19, 2014, when he was ordered to stop by a uniformed colleague about two blocks away from some property the plaintiff owned and wanted to inspect.
Ferguson says he told the officer that he also was with the LAPD and showed him his driver’s license and department identification card. He also says he had his uniform and badge in the car’s back seat.
“The officer told plaintiff that he needed to verify plaintiff’s employment because ‘the (gang members) down here are known to impersonate LAPD,”‘ the complaint alleges.
The officer allowed Ferguson to leave after 20 minutes. However, after Ferguson pulled into the driveway of his property, the same officer detained him for another 20 minutes while again insisting he needed to verify the plaintiff’s employment, the suit states.
During the stop, Ferguson contacted his supervisor at the Hollywood Division and said he was being harassed because he is black, according to his court papers.
A month after the two stops, Ferguson filed a personnel complaint against the officer who detained him. The LAPD retaliated by assigning him temporarily to another division, where he was assigned to administrative traffic duties, the suit alleges.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The first stop may have been justified, but not the second one by the same cop. This also appears to be a case of racial profiling. But who got punished? The complaining officer, of course.
MyNewsLA.com
October 26, 2015
A black Los Angeles policeman sued the city Monday, alleging he was retaliated against after complaining that a white colleague pulled him over and detained him twice despite being shown identification, saying he needed to verify the plaintiff’s employment because gang members are known to impersonate LAPD officers.
Lamark Ferguson’s Los Angeles Superior Court complaint seeks unspecified damages. An LAPD spokeswoman declined to comment on the complaint.
The suit states that Ferguson was hired by the LAPD in 2009 and was driving while off-duty in South Los Angeles on Aug. 19, 2014, when he was ordered to stop by a uniformed colleague about two blocks away from some property the plaintiff owned and wanted to inspect.
Ferguson says he told the officer that he also was with the LAPD and showed him his driver’s license and department identification card. He also says he had his uniform and badge in the car’s back seat.
“The officer told plaintiff that he needed to verify plaintiff’s employment because ‘the (gang members) down here are known to impersonate LAPD,”‘ the complaint alleges.
The officer allowed Ferguson to leave after 20 minutes. However, after Ferguson pulled into the driveway of his property, the same officer detained him for another 20 minutes while again insisting he needed to verify the plaintiff’s employment, the suit states.
During the stop, Ferguson contacted his supervisor at the Hollywood Division and said he was being harassed because he is black, according to his court papers.
A month after the two stops, Ferguson filed a personnel complaint against the officer who detained him. The LAPD retaliated by assigning him temporarily to another division, where he was assigned to administrative traffic duties, the suit alleges.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The first stop may have been justified, but not the second one by the same cop. This also appears to be a case of racial profiling. But who got punished? The complaining officer, of course.
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS SECRETARY FAVORS PRONE POSITION WITH INMATE HOSERS
According to Secretary Beard, there is a difference between types of violent inmates, and he seems prone to give leeway to those prone to violence
By Richard Krupp, PhD
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
October 27, 2015
A couple of weeks ago Secretary of Corrections Jeffrey Beard demonstrated his comedic skills by utilizing the Abbot and Costello, “Who’s on first” routine to explain away the prison system utilization of violent inmates on fire crews.
If I understand Secretary Beard’s fire camp gag, there is an obvious distinction between violent convicts and convicts who are prone to be violent, which he bases solely on their convictions.
Considering his rhetoric, Mr. Beard sounds like he favors the prone position with inmate hosers (AKA: firefighters.)
Evidently violent criminals can change their stripes and non-violent criminals can morph as well, by Mr. Beard’s assessment.
According to Beard, quoted in a recent Sacramento Bee interview, some inmates are convicted of violence and others are prone to violence.
Inmates not ‘”classified” as violent are banned from fire camp if they act violent.
Inmates who are non-violent but have violent tendencies are banned from fire camp.
A violent inmate who changes to non-violent can go to camp.
The comedic Beard made everyone feel more comfortable when he indicated that even Corrections people haven’t understood this fluid concept. This has been going on a long time so don’t worry about it.
Here are some highlights from a Sacramento Bee article:
California prison officials try to clean up message mess
First, they had to fend off worries that they were about to unleash a wave of violence-prone criminals into low-security fire camps, with reports on Monday that Corrections was thinking about expanding the pool of candidates to inmates with violent felony convictions.
Then the Associated Press reported that roughly 40 percent of the 3,700 inmates in fire camps at the end of September had been convicted of violent crimes, despite a statement, now deleted, on the department’s website that said only non-violent offenders served fire duty.
On Thursday, Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard, hoping to calm fears and relieve the political pressure on his department, defended the policy and tried to reconcile the conflicting messages. “Even some of our own people haven’t understood it,” he said.
The misunderstanding, Beard said, comes down to the difference between a person convicted of a violent act and a person who is prone to act violently. Inmates with the most serious convictions – murder and rape, for example – are automatically excluded from fire duty even if they are angels behind bars. Other inmates whose crimes aren’t classified as violent are banned from fire camps duty if they act violently in prison or if circumstances surrounding their non-violent convictions indicate violent tendencies, such as stalking.
Some inmates who came in with a violent history change their behavior, however, and some of those violent offenders may get fire duty after rigorous screening, Beard said.
“The people that we’re sending to the fire camps today are the same as the people we’ve sent the last 10 to 15 years,” said Beard said. “Nothing has changed.” (for full story read http://tinyurl.com/pkddl94.)
I’m not sure how anyone can tell how or when this transition takes place since Corrections officials don’t understand it. Surely they must have some “evidence-based” study that explains everything. Then again, maybe it is more difficult than meets the eye.
Can a violent person become non-violent then change back to violent? Or vice versa? How is it possible that no one in CDCR (except the Good Secretary) knows how to figure this out?
Maybe the use of violence is a matter of choice. Inmates may try out violence to see if it is a good fit for them.
Certainly the question of violence must be on a CDCR form. Why not let the inmates self-select? Give violence a try. If it doesn’t feel right then become non-violent.
Inmates can always go back to the other side. I’m sure firefighters will find comfort in knowing the inmate crews they are working with are thoroughly scrutinized by prison officials for violent tendencies.
It sounds as though the release of thousands on “non-violent” criminals from prison has not hampered the inmate fire camp system. The use of the more fluid violent/non-violent classification has done the trick.
This must be something good that can work. After all, to quote Beard, “Even some of our own people haven’t understood it.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Inmates may try out violence to see if it is a good fit for them.” Would these be good examples? Inmate A attacks his cellie but gets the supreme shit kicked out of him. Inmate B assaults an officer but gets the supreme shit kicked out of him. While in the prison’s medical facility, Inmates A and B decide violence is not a good fit for them.
By Richard Krupp, PhD
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
October 27, 2015
A couple of weeks ago Secretary of Corrections Jeffrey Beard demonstrated his comedic skills by utilizing the Abbot and Costello, “Who’s on first” routine to explain away the prison system utilization of violent inmates on fire crews.
If I understand Secretary Beard’s fire camp gag, there is an obvious distinction between violent convicts and convicts who are prone to be violent, which he bases solely on their convictions.
Considering his rhetoric, Mr. Beard sounds like he favors the prone position with inmate hosers (AKA: firefighters.)
Evidently violent criminals can change their stripes and non-violent criminals can morph as well, by Mr. Beard’s assessment.
According to Beard, quoted in a recent Sacramento Bee interview, some inmates are convicted of violence and others are prone to violence.
Inmates not ‘”classified” as violent are banned from fire camp if they act violent.
Inmates who are non-violent but have violent tendencies are banned from fire camp.
A violent inmate who changes to non-violent can go to camp.
The comedic Beard made everyone feel more comfortable when he indicated that even Corrections people haven’t understood this fluid concept. This has been going on a long time so don’t worry about it.
Here are some highlights from a Sacramento Bee article:
California prison officials try to clean up message mess
First, they had to fend off worries that they were about to unleash a wave of violence-prone criminals into low-security fire camps, with reports on Monday that Corrections was thinking about expanding the pool of candidates to inmates with violent felony convictions.
Then the Associated Press reported that roughly 40 percent of the 3,700 inmates in fire camps at the end of September had been convicted of violent crimes, despite a statement, now deleted, on the department’s website that said only non-violent offenders served fire duty.
On Thursday, Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard, hoping to calm fears and relieve the political pressure on his department, defended the policy and tried to reconcile the conflicting messages. “Even some of our own people haven’t understood it,” he said.
The misunderstanding, Beard said, comes down to the difference between a person convicted of a violent act and a person who is prone to act violently. Inmates with the most serious convictions – murder and rape, for example – are automatically excluded from fire duty even if they are angels behind bars. Other inmates whose crimes aren’t classified as violent are banned from fire camps duty if they act violently in prison or if circumstances surrounding their non-violent convictions indicate violent tendencies, such as stalking.
Some inmates who came in with a violent history change their behavior, however, and some of those violent offenders may get fire duty after rigorous screening, Beard said.
“The people that we’re sending to the fire camps today are the same as the people we’ve sent the last 10 to 15 years,” said Beard said. “Nothing has changed.” (for full story read http://tinyurl.com/pkddl94.)
I’m not sure how anyone can tell how or when this transition takes place since Corrections officials don’t understand it. Surely they must have some “evidence-based” study that explains everything. Then again, maybe it is more difficult than meets the eye.
Can a violent person become non-violent then change back to violent? Or vice versa? How is it possible that no one in CDCR (except the Good Secretary) knows how to figure this out?
Maybe the use of violence is a matter of choice. Inmates may try out violence to see if it is a good fit for them.
Certainly the question of violence must be on a CDCR form. Why not let the inmates self-select? Give violence a try. If it doesn’t feel right then become non-violent.
Inmates can always go back to the other side. I’m sure firefighters will find comfort in knowing the inmate crews they are working with are thoroughly scrutinized by prison officials for violent tendencies.
It sounds as though the release of thousands on “non-violent” criminals from prison has not hampered the inmate fire camp system. The use of the more fluid violent/non-violent classification has done the trick.
This must be something good that can work. After all, to quote Beard, “Even some of our own people haven’t understood it.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: “Inmates may try out violence to see if it is a good fit for them.” Would these be good examples? Inmate A attacks his cellie but gets the supreme shit kicked out of him. Inmate B assaults an officer but gets the supreme shit kicked out of him. While in the prison’s medical facility, Inmates A and B decide violence is not a good fit for them.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
SAUDI EXECUTION
Laila Bint Abdul Muttalib Basim, a Burmese woman, was executed in Makkah, in western Saudi Arabia, after she was found guilty of torturing her seven-year-old stepdaughter to death. Here is the video of her execution:
The Saudi interior ministry said that the murderer killed the daughter of her husband, Kalthoum Bin Abdul Rahman Bin Ghulam Qadir, by beating her severely and inserting the stick of a broom into her genitals “without any mercy or compassion”, causing her death.
The execution took place in January of this year. The condemned woman can be heard screaming "I did not kill" over and over again until the white-robed executioner lobbed off her head with his scimitar.
The police officer who videoed the execution has been arrested.
The Saudi interior ministry said that the murderer killed the daughter of her husband, Kalthoum Bin Abdul Rahman Bin Ghulam Qadir, by beating her severely and inserting the stick of a broom into her genitals “without any mercy or compassion”, causing her death.
The execution took place in January of this year. The condemned woman can be heard screaming "I did not kill" over and over again until the white-robed executioner lobbed off her head with his scimitar.
The police officer who videoed the execution has been arrested.
HOW SMALL TIME POT-POSSESSION CHARGE CAN RUIN YOUR LIFE IN 24 HOURS
Jersey Village, Texas cops ruined the life of Navy veteran Rebecca Kennedy by jailing her for possessing less than two ounces of pot
By Meagan Flynn
Houston Press
October 26, 2015
Rebecca Kennedy wasn’t expecting to be surrounded by police when she stopped at her storage unit to change into comfy clothes before work.
She and her fiancé, Trevon Chapman, had just been evicted from their apartment two days earlier, on September 15, when they could no longer pay the $2,000-per-month rent. So they started living out of Chapman’s truck. The two military vets had moved all of their belongings—“their entire lives,” Kennedy says—into this little metal box in Jersey Village.
Now, they were suspected of being thieves.
Jersery Village police officers ordered them out of their vehicle so they could search them. Chapman had a gun in his pants holster, which he planned to drop off in storage since he did not yet have a concealed-carry license, and did not want to get arrested for having it in his car. Police arrested him.
Then, officers said they were going to search the vehicle, claiming they spotted a marijuana grinder in plain sight. Kennedy, who spent six years in the Navy and a few flying soldiers into combat zones, says she obtained a medical marijuana card when she returned to California from her deployment in Japan last year. She says she used pot to quell her bad episodes of post-traumatic stress disorder. But when officers found less than two ounces inside a little dispenser in a Dr. Pepper can, she got arrested too. “I feel like they trapped us,” said Kennedy, who just turned 25. “They didn't even give us a chance.”
Within 24 hours, Kennedy was fired from her UPS job as she sat in jail waiting for her mom to drive from Georgia to bail her out. Her mom lost her job, too, because she had to miss her shifts at Lowe's to make the trip. Kennedy had to drop out of the University of Houston because, as a condition of her bond, she would need to go live with her mom in Georgia as she awaited trial. And as a result, she also lost her GI Bill.
All of this—because officers, for unknown reasons, did not follow a simple policy when they arrested her.
With a clean criminal record—not even a traffic ticket on the books—Kennedy should have been eligible for Harris County's First Chance Intervention Program, a leniency program for first-time, low-level pot offenders. Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson launched the program in October 2014 to help these first timers avoid jail time and criminal charges in exchange for community service. The goal was not only to save taxpayer money by not jailing these nonviolent people with petty charges, but also to make sure they don't have to face the consequences of those petty charges, like losing a job. Or, as in Kennedy's case, everything.
The problem with the First Chance policy, though, is that officers aren’t really required to follow it. There’s a little “exception” clause that allows officers to use their discretion and deny the program to eligible offenders “when deemed appropriate.” And police appear to be denying offenders quite often. As of October 20, 79 percent of people eligible for First Chance—that’s 1,728 offenders—had already spent time in jail and were charged with the crime before they were offered the program, which, as we've written previously, pretty much defeats the purpose of the program.
When we first explored this problem in September, DA’s Office spokesman Jeff McShan told us the main reason this was happening was because only the Houston Police Department and the Harris County Sheriff’s Office were participating in the program pre-charge. That has since changed; as of October 1, 11 agencies are participating pre-charge. Jersey Village PD began on September 14—meaning it should have been fresh in officers’ minds when they arrested Kennedy.
But still, even the two main agencies, HPD and HCSO, were jailing and charging 40 percent of eligible offenders before they were offered First Chance in court.
The Houston Press attempted to find out why so many defendants eligible for the program were still being arrested, charged and jailed before being offered it. We requested to see every single exception form—which officers who deny First Chance to eligible offenders are required to fill out under the policy—filed since October 2014, assuming there would be some 1,728 of them.
We received 13.
The DA’s Office could not explain what happened to the other 1,715 forms, or if officers were just not following the policy or forgetting about this requirement. Prosecutors also could not provide any reason for why Kennedy could have been denied the program based on the facts of her case; a secretary at Jersey Village PD told us there was nothing in Kennedy’s arrest report that indicated why police denied it to her either.
The first time Kennedy had even heard of First Chance, she said, was when we called her.
When we brought Kennedy's case to the attention of the DA's Office, McShan questioned why her defense attorney didn’t just explain the program to her. Kennedy, after proving that she only had $350 to her name and had just lost everything, was finally appointed counsel three weeks after the arrest on October 9. However, Kennedy says the court did not provide her with the attorney’s phone number and told her to “just Google it.” Which she couldn’t do, because she didn’t have Internet access and police had confiscated her cellphone and never returned it. Police had also confiscated a little souvenir training missile Kennedy had taken home with her from deployment, and, after police threatened to file federal charges, they called a bomb squad to make sure Chapman and Kennedy weren’t trying to blow up the storage unit. When they noticed Kennedy's Mac laptop in storage, police questioned how she could have possibly afforded it. They demanded to see a receipt for proof of purchase—from 2009.
When Harris County assistant district attorney Nicole Clark heard about what happened to Kennedy, she told the Press, “That sounds very unfortunate.”
And it doesn't appear Kennedy's story is all that unique. Among the 13 exception forms was that of a 19-year-old kid, who, both unemployed and not in school, served four days in jail, paid a $300 fine and $297 in court costs for getting caught with a little baggie of pot. He also had a squeaky clean record. The officer's reasoning for denying him First Chance was that he was arrested during a narcotics sting operation, in which others in the room, presumably dealers, were caught with larger amounts of pot.
Clark insists that this is one of the main reasons officers might deny First Chance (next to offenders not having proper identification on them). At least in this 19-year-old’s case, just being in the same room as those people may now hurt his chances of getting hired or being accepted to a college.
Still, Clark said she believes the program has been successful since 94 percent of First Chance participants have not reoffended. “We feel like that’s a pretty drastic, very good success rate of how the program is positively impacting people,” Clark said.
Should Kennedy be offered the program in court, she would likely also be included in that success rate once she completes it.
But for now, Kennedy and Chapman are trying to figure out how they’ll even make it back to Texas for court. With both of them and Kennedy’s mother being out of work, they don’t know how they’ll pool together enough money for gas. To get to Georgia, Kennedy and Chapman spent their last money on a flight, since Kennedy’s mom had to head back earlier than they did.
Before leaving Houston, they cleared out the storage unit. They parked Chapman's truck in a no-tow zone with all of their belongings, their entire lives, stowed away in the bed, covered by a tarp. They had hoped it wouldn't rain too hard.
EDITOR’S NOTE: What a heartbreaking story. Please - sob, sob - give me a moment to collect myself. ….. If only poor Rebecca had stayed in California with its phony medical marijuana program.
By Meagan Flynn
Houston Press
October 26, 2015
Rebecca Kennedy wasn’t expecting to be surrounded by police when she stopped at her storage unit to change into comfy clothes before work.
She and her fiancé, Trevon Chapman, had just been evicted from their apartment two days earlier, on September 15, when they could no longer pay the $2,000-per-month rent. So they started living out of Chapman’s truck. The two military vets had moved all of their belongings—“their entire lives,” Kennedy says—into this little metal box in Jersey Village.
Now, they were suspected of being thieves.
Jersery Village police officers ordered them out of their vehicle so they could search them. Chapman had a gun in his pants holster, which he planned to drop off in storage since he did not yet have a concealed-carry license, and did not want to get arrested for having it in his car. Police arrested him.
Then, officers said they were going to search the vehicle, claiming they spotted a marijuana grinder in plain sight. Kennedy, who spent six years in the Navy and a few flying soldiers into combat zones, says she obtained a medical marijuana card when she returned to California from her deployment in Japan last year. She says she used pot to quell her bad episodes of post-traumatic stress disorder. But when officers found less than two ounces inside a little dispenser in a Dr. Pepper can, she got arrested too. “I feel like they trapped us,” said Kennedy, who just turned 25. “They didn't even give us a chance.”
Within 24 hours, Kennedy was fired from her UPS job as she sat in jail waiting for her mom to drive from Georgia to bail her out. Her mom lost her job, too, because she had to miss her shifts at Lowe's to make the trip. Kennedy had to drop out of the University of Houston because, as a condition of her bond, she would need to go live with her mom in Georgia as she awaited trial. And as a result, she also lost her GI Bill.
All of this—because officers, for unknown reasons, did not follow a simple policy when they arrested her.
With a clean criminal record—not even a traffic ticket on the books—Kennedy should have been eligible for Harris County's First Chance Intervention Program, a leniency program for first-time, low-level pot offenders. Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson launched the program in October 2014 to help these first timers avoid jail time and criminal charges in exchange for community service. The goal was not only to save taxpayer money by not jailing these nonviolent people with petty charges, but also to make sure they don't have to face the consequences of those petty charges, like losing a job. Or, as in Kennedy's case, everything.
The problem with the First Chance policy, though, is that officers aren’t really required to follow it. There’s a little “exception” clause that allows officers to use their discretion and deny the program to eligible offenders “when deemed appropriate.” And police appear to be denying offenders quite often. As of October 20, 79 percent of people eligible for First Chance—that’s 1,728 offenders—had already spent time in jail and were charged with the crime before they were offered the program, which, as we've written previously, pretty much defeats the purpose of the program.
When we first explored this problem in September, DA’s Office spokesman Jeff McShan told us the main reason this was happening was because only the Houston Police Department and the Harris County Sheriff’s Office were participating in the program pre-charge. That has since changed; as of October 1, 11 agencies are participating pre-charge. Jersey Village PD began on September 14—meaning it should have been fresh in officers’ minds when they arrested Kennedy.
But still, even the two main agencies, HPD and HCSO, were jailing and charging 40 percent of eligible offenders before they were offered First Chance in court.
The Houston Press attempted to find out why so many defendants eligible for the program were still being arrested, charged and jailed before being offered it. We requested to see every single exception form—which officers who deny First Chance to eligible offenders are required to fill out under the policy—filed since October 2014, assuming there would be some 1,728 of them.
We received 13.
The DA’s Office could not explain what happened to the other 1,715 forms, or if officers were just not following the policy or forgetting about this requirement. Prosecutors also could not provide any reason for why Kennedy could have been denied the program based on the facts of her case; a secretary at Jersey Village PD told us there was nothing in Kennedy’s arrest report that indicated why police denied it to her either.
The first time Kennedy had even heard of First Chance, she said, was when we called her.
When we brought Kennedy's case to the attention of the DA's Office, McShan questioned why her defense attorney didn’t just explain the program to her. Kennedy, after proving that she only had $350 to her name and had just lost everything, was finally appointed counsel three weeks after the arrest on October 9. However, Kennedy says the court did not provide her with the attorney’s phone number and told her to “just Google it.” Which she couldn’t do, because she didn’t have Internet access and police had confiscated her cellphone and never returned it. Police had also confiscated a little souvenir training missile Kennedy had taken home with her from deployment, and, after police threatened to file federal charges, they called a bomb squad to make sure Chapman and Kennedy weren’t trying to blow up the storage unit. When they noticed Kennedy's Mac laptop in storage, police questioned how she could have possibly afforded it. They demanded to see a receipt for proof of purchase—from 2009.
When Harris County assistant district attorney Nicole Clark heard about what happened to Kennedy, she told the Press, “That sounds very unfortunate.”
And it doesn't appear Kennedy's story is all that unique. Among the 13 exception forms was that of a 19-year-old kid, who, both unemployed and not in school, served four days in jail, paid a $300 fine and $297 in court costs for getting caught with a little baggie of pot. He also had a squeaky clean record. The officer's reasoning for denying him First Chance was that he was arrested during a narcotics sting operation, in which others in the room, presumably dealers, were caught with larger amounts of pot.
Clark insists that this is one of the main reasons officers might deny First Chance (next to offenders not having proper identification on them). At least in this 19-year-old’s case, just being in the same room as those people may now hurt his chances of getting hired or being accepted to a college.
Still, Clark said she believes the program has been successful since 94 percent of First Chance participants have not reoffended. “We feel like that’s a pretty drastic, very good success rate of how the program is positively impacting people,” Clark said.
Should Kennedy be offered the program in court, she would likely also be included in that success rate once she completes it.
But for now, Kennedy and Chapman are trying to figure out how they’ll even make it back to Texas for court. With both of them and Kennedy’s mother being out of work, they don’t know how they’ll pool together enough money for gas. To get to Georgia, Kennedy and Chapman spent their last money on a flight, since Kennedy’s mom had to head back earlier than they did.
Before leaving Houston, they cleared out the storage unit. They parked Chapman's truck in a no-tow zone with all of their belongings, their entire lives, stowed away in the bed, covered by a tarp. They had hoped it wouldn't rain too hard.
EDITOR’S NOTE: What a heartbreaking story. Please - sob, sob - give me a moment to collect myself. ….. If only poor Rebecca had stayed in California with its phony medical marijuana program.
CALIFORNIA’S PROP. 47 REVOLUTION: VOTERS WERE SOLD A BILL OF GOODS
LAPD is noticing an uptick in property and drug related crimes, many officers saying it is the result of Proposition 47 which changed many prior felonies into misdemeanors
By Marc Debbaudt
Los Angeles Times
October 26, 2015
As crime rates rise, Californians are realizing that they were sold a bill of goods on Proposition 47, the 2014 ballot measure that converted some felonies to misdemeanors. The campaign spin was all about reducing the punishment for drug possession. But proponents played down its dramatic softening of penalties for many non-drug offenses.
Under this law, more than 3,700 inmates have had their sentences reduced and been released from state prison. Drug addicts now often escape punishment for crimes they commonly commit to support their habits: shoplifting, writing bad checks and any thefts under $950 — even of guns. And most semiautomatic pistols and revolvers are purchased new for less than $950. This leniency just facilitates continued addiction.
Before Proposition 47, when prosecutors evaluated the appropriate degree of punishment to seek for someone accused of drug possession or theft, they studied the person's criminal history. That history doesn't matter much anymore. Even someone who has been convicted and served time for a serious crime — such as armed robbery, kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon — can no longer be sent back to prison if convicted of a new theft or drug offense, because these have been reclassified as misdemeanors.
Let's say someone snatches a purse from your hand without knocking you over or using much force. That's called "grand theft person." Before Proposition 47, it was a "wobbler:" a crime that could be classified as either a felony or a misdemeanor. To decide which to charge, prosecutors would study the defendant's record. If, for example, he had a prior robbery, the prosecutor would probably go for a felony conviction. But now, unless your purse cost more than $950, the theft can be only a misdemeanor, meaning state prison is not possible as a punishment and deterrent.
Under Proposition 47, the criminal's prior robbery means nothing. His past simply doesn't matter.
Reformers say everyone needs a second chance, but the tragedy is that public safety has suffered as crime rates have soared. Residents have become victims under the guise of reforming punishment only for so-called victimless drug offenses.
In the city of Los Angeles, property crimes such as burglaries and motor vehicle thefts have risen 10.9% compared with the same period last year. Violent crime, such as aggravated assaults and robberies, has soared 20.6%. Mayor Eric Garcetti told The Times those increases may be linked to Proposition 47.
To make things even worse, the social engineers in the Legislature also passed a law in 2014 that reduced the maximum misdemeanor sentence from 365 days to 364 days. Under federal immigration law, a noncitizen who is convicted of an offense punishable by 365 days or more can be deported. With many felonies now reduced to 364-day misdemeanors, some criminals who otherwise would have been deported get to stay.
Here is additional fallout from Proposition 47 that Californians probably didn't anticipate when they voted for the measure:
The justice system lost all leverage to mandate rehabilitative drug programs. There is no incentive for an offender to accept a court-ordered 18-month to two-year intensive treatment program when the maximum consequence for a drug conviction is a six-month term in county jail. In many cases the jail sentence means only a few days, or even just hours, in custody because the jails have to make room for the felons sent from state prison under that other great reform called realignment. The treatment program rolls are down 60% in L.A. County, and addicted offenders are not getting the treatment they desperately need.
Proposition 47 took away a tool to fight sex crimes when it reduced the penalty for possession of dangerous date-rape drugs to a misdemeanor.
Thousands fewer DNA samples are being taken from suspects every month because state law permits police to collect DNA only from felony suspects. It follows that it will be much harder, if not impossible, to solve old cases such as murder and rape.
Californians passed Proposition 47 because it was slickly marketed as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. But as the results clearly demonstrate, we are far from being safer in our neighborhoods — or anywhere else.
Marc Debbaudt is president of the Assn. of Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent for deputy district attorneys for the county of Los Angeles.
By Marc Debbaudt
Los Angeles Times
October 26, 2015
As crime rates rise, Californians are realizing that they were sold a bill of goods on Proposition 47, the 2014 ballot measure that converted some felonies to misdemeanors. The campaign spin was all about reducing the punishment for drug possession. But proponents played down its dramatic softening of penalties for many non-drug offenses.
Under this law, more than 3,700 inmates have had their sentences reduced and been released from state prison. Drug addicts now often escape punishment for crimes they commonly commit to support their habits: shoplifting, writing bad checks and any thefts under $950 — even of guns. And most semiautomatic pistols and revolvers are purchased new for less than $950. This leniency just facilitates continued addiction.
Before Proposition 47, when prosecutors evaluated the appropriate degree of punishment to seek for someone accused of drug possession or theft, they studied the person's criminal history. That history doesn't matter much anymore. Even someone who has been convicted and served time for a serious crime — such as armed robbery, kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon — can no longer be sent back to prison if convicted of a new theft or drug offense, because these have been reclassified as misdemeanors.
Let's say someone snatches a purse from your hand without knocking you over or using much force. That's called "grand theft person." Before Proposition 47, it was a "wobbler:" a crime that could be classified as either a felony or a misdemeanor. To decide which to charge, prosecutors would study the defendant's record. If, for example, he had a prior robbery, the prosecutor would probably go for a felony conviction. But now, unless your purse cost more than $950, the theft can be only a misdemeanor, meaning state prison is not possible as a punishment and deterrent.
Under Proposition 47, the criminal's prior robbery means nothing. His past simply doesn't matter.
Reformers say everyone needs a second chance, but the tragedy is that public safety has suffered as crime rates have soared. Residents have become victims under the guise of reforming punishment only for so-called victimless drug offenses.
In the city of Los Angeles, property crimes such as burglaries and motor vehicle thefts have risen 10.9% compared with the same period last year. Violent crime, such as aggravated assaults and robberies, has soared 20.6%. Mayor Eric Garcetti told The Times those increases may be linked to Proposition 47.
To make things even worse, the social engineers in the Legislature also passed a law in 2014 that reduced the maximum misdemeanor sentence from 365 days to 364 days. Under federal immigration law, a noncitizen who is convicted of an offense punishable by 365 days or more can be deported. With many felonies now reduced to 364-day misdemeanors, some criminals who otherwise would have been deported get to stay.
Here is additional fallout from Proposition 47 that Californians probably didn't anticipate when they voted for the measure:
The justice system lost all leverage to mandate rehabilitative drug programs. There is no incentive for an offender to accept a court-ordered 18-month to two-year intensive treatment program when the maximum consequence for a drug conviction is a six-month term in county jail. In many cases the jail sentence means only a few days, or even just hours, in custody because the jails have to make room for the felons sent from state prison under that other great reform called realignment. The treatment program rolls are down 60% in L.A. County, and addicted offenders are not getting the treatment they desperately need.
Proposition 47 took away a tool to fight sex crimes when it reduced the penalty for possession of dangerous date-rape drugs to a misdemeanor.
Thousands fewer DNA samples are being taken from suspects every month because state law permits police to collect DNA only from felony suspects. It follows that it will be much harder, if not impossible, to solve old cases such as murder and rape.
Californians passed Proposition 47 because it was slickly marketed as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. But as the results clearly demonstrate, we are far from being safer in our neighborhoods — or anywhere else.
Marc Debbaudt is president of the Assn. of Deputy District Attorneys, the collective bargaining agent for deputy district attorneys for the county of Los Angeles.
COME INSIDE THE CRAZIEST PRISON IN THE WORLD
In the heart of Bolivia lies a prison like no other, where children roam the corridors, drugs are made and sold and an inmate council hands out corporal punishment
Sunday Night
October 25, 2015
Welcome to San Pedro.
Sunday Night's Denham Hitchcock went inside the prison city in the centre of La Paz with Australian author Rusty Young, the man who made this place famous.
Young's book about the prison, Marching Powder, is still a bestseller after 12 years — and the closest look anyone from the outside world has had of San Pedro.
Filmed on hidden cameras, Young returned with Sunday Night for the first time since releasing his book 12 years ago.
He in infamous to the residents of San Pedro after spending four months there — some call him a friend, many do not.
"I am a little bit nervous that someone might want to take some kind of revenge but I am also excited because its been a while since I have been inside there and it will be interesting to see how it has changed"
I was in there alone I would be very, very scared."
There are guards around the outside walls and at the gates but once you go inside the inmates run the prison, it is a cheap model that the Bolivian government supports.
"They found when they put these guys in prison their families on the outside were in terrible trouble — so the families were brought into the prison," Young said.
The argument is that it is safer for them to be inside the prison than on the street.
"They’re safer in here, much safer here, than on the streets, fending for themselves, So it’s a big debate, they should really have hostels but they don’t have them yet," Young said.
"The children are sometimes in actual physical danger. There are a number of cases of young girls, one girl who was six was raped and killed inside the prison when the mother was off partying.
"Only two years ago a 12 year old girl was found to be pregnant."
But these offences don’t go unpunished, rapists and child molesters are treated with a zero-tolerance policy by the inmates 'council'.
"If you have a pedophile or a rapist that comes in they drag them down to this small pool, they water-board them in front of everyone and they say, 'We know who you are — this happens again and you're done."
The death penalty here is a beating, drowning and sometimes electrocution at 'The Well".
"They fill it with water and they just throw them in there and they beat them and drown them, electrocute them, stab them and then just kick them until they’re dead," You said.
But rusty Young says the children have a good effect on the prisoners.
"I definitely think the prisoners themselves receive a big benefit from it. It has a very humanizing and pacifying effect on them, they tend not to fight as much."
Children aren’t the only unusual things you'll find in San Pedro, there is also a rampant cocaine industry, and a star-based housing scale.
If you have no money, you sleep in concrete corridors and alcoves but those who can afford it can buy two-storey apartments to live in with their families.
"There are eight different sections inside the prison and everyone has to buy their own prison cell," Young said.
"The inmates have invented a rating system so you have anything from zero stars up to five and a half stars where really rich drug traffickers and politicians live."
Amid the crime corruption, drugs and violence there is a surprising level of organization. Each section of the jail is represented by a small council to make decisions.
Prisoners must feed and house themselves within the prison and so will sell whatever product or service they can to survive, which has resulted in a thriving town-like environment complete with barbers, restaurants and tradesmen.
"The Government does provide watery soup but basically often the money goes missing, so the actual quality of the food and the amount of nutrition is so poor the inmates decide to feed themselves."
While San Pedro was build to house only 250 people it currently has a population of more than 3000. Wives and children leave during the day to work and attend school and inmates do what they can to earn a living inside until their release.
Hundreds of children live with their parents in the San Pedro Prison in Bolivia’s capital, La Paz.
The Bolivian Government claims this is better for the kids. More than two thousand children live in 17 prisons across the poverty-stricken country. Over the years there have been many claims by the Government that it would phase out the practice.
There have been attacks on the children inside, even deaths. But supporters claim it is better for the children’s parents, giving them hope and a reason to work towards their freedom.
Outside, without their parents, children can be very exposed in poor communities where violence is common.
The charity, Prison Fellowship International, runs a program for children in San Pedro Prison, providing education and food.
Sunday Night
October 25, 2015
Welcome to San Pedro.
Sunday Night's Denham Hitchcock went inside the prison city in the centre of La Paz with Australian author Rusty Young, the man who made this place famous.
Young's book about the prison, Marching Powder, is still a bestseller after 12 years — and the closest look anyone from the outside world has had of San Pedro.
Filmed on hidden cameras, Young returned with Sunday Night for the first time since releasing his book 12 years ago.
He in infamous to the residents of San Pedro after spending four months there — some call him a friend, many do not.
"I am a little bit nervous that someone might want to take some kind of revenge but I am also excited because its been a while since I have been inside there and it will be interesting to see how it has changed"
I was in there alone I would be very, very scared."
There are guards around the outside walls and at the gates but once you go inside the inmates run the prison, it is a cheap model that the Bolivian government supports.
"They found when they put these guys in prison their families on the outside were in terrible trouble — so the families were brought into the prison," Young said.
The argument is that it is safer for them to be inside the prison than on the street.
"They’re safer in here, much safer here, than on the streets, fending for themselves, So it’s a big debate, they should really have hostels but they don’t have them yet," Young said.
"The children are sometimes in actual physical danger. There are a number of cases of young girls, one girl who was six was raped and killed inside the prison when the mother was off partying.
"Only two years ago a 12 year old girl was found to be pregnant."
But these offences don’t go unpunished, rapists and child molesters are treated with a zero-tolerance policy by the inmates 'council'.
"If you have a pedophile or a rapist that comes in they drag them down to this small pool, they water-board them in front of everyone and they say, 'We know who you are — this happens again and you're done."
The death penalty here is a beating, drowning and sometimes electrocution at 'The Well".
"They fill it with water and they just throw them in there and they beat them and drown them, electrocute them, stab them and then just kick them until they’re dead," You said.
But rusty Young says the children have a good effect on the prisoners.
"I definitely think the prisoners themselves receive a big benefit from it. It has a very humanizing and pacifying effect on them, they tend not to fight as much."
Children aren’t the only unusual things you'll find in San Pedro, there is also a rampant cocaine industry, and a star-based housing scale.
If you have no money, you sleep in concrete corridors and alcoves but those who can afford it can buy two-storey apartments to live in with their families.
"There are eight different sections inside the prison and everyone has to buy their own prison cell," Young said.
"The inmates have invented a rating system so you have anything from zero stars up to five and a half stars where really rich drug traffickers and politicians live."
Amid the crime corruption, drugs and violence there is a surprising level of organization. Each section of the jail is represented by a small council to make decisions.
Prisoners must feed and house themselves within the prison and so will sell whatever product or service they can to survive, which has resulted in a thriving town-like environment complete with barbers, restaurants and tradesmen.
"The Government does provide watery soup but basically often the money goes missing, so the actual quality of the food and the amount of nutrition is so poor the inmates decide to feed themselves."
While San Pedro was build to house only 250 people it currently has a population of more than 3000. Wives and children leave during the day to work and attend school and inmates do what they can to earn a living inside until their release.
Hundreds of children live with their parents in the San Pedro Prison in Bolivia’s capital, La Paz.
The Bolivian Government claims this is better for the kids. More than two thousand children live in 17 prisons across the poverty-stricken country. Over the years there have been many claims by the Government that it would phase out the practice.
There have been attacks on the children inside, even deaths. But supporters claim it is better for the children’s parents, giving them hope and a reason to work towards their freedom.
Outside, without their parents, children can be very exposed in poor communities where violence is common.
The charity, Prison Fellowship International, runs a program for children in San Pedro Prison, providing education and food.
Monday, October 26, 2015
EARLY RELEASE: WHO THE DRUG FELONS ARE AND WHERE THEY’LL GO
On November 1, over 6,000 drug felons will be released from federal prisons in effort to reduce 'harsh' drug laws
Associated Press
October 25, 2015
Six thousand drug felons are set for release around Nov. 1 as part of a national effort to reduce what have now been deemed too-harsh drug laws. All participants being released are drug offenders no longer deemed a danger to the community.
Who They Are
According to early release petitions obtained by The Associated Press from court records, they include:
— Lincoln Steve White, 43, who was caught buying 2 ounces of cocaine for $1,400 in Florida in 2008 and has served more than five years of a seven-year sentence. He plans to live with a girlfriend and put the heating and air conditioning repair skills he learned in prison to work.
— Chedrick Crummie, 45, who's leaving prison after serving 21 years for cocaine trafficking in South Florida, and has a janitorial job lined up through a local minister.
— Emilio Flores, 43, whose cocaine trafficking sentence fell from 10 years to six under the new guidelines. Flores believes his mental illness and addiction made him easy prey for manipulative drug dealers. Prison didn't help the situation, he said. "The treatment is to medicate the mentally ill into zombies," Flores, of Florida, wrote in his petition.
Where They're Going
About 2,000 of the 6,000 being released soon are being deported. Many others will be steered to traditional probation programs. Most have already been moved to halfway houses or home confinement over the past year, as their sentences were recalculated. Some will go to public or privately run programs that help prisoners ease back into society. How different states are handling the mass release:
— In eastern Pennsylvania, the 45 people being released early are just a blip on a probation department caseload that numbers 2,800 people.
— In Georgia, U.S. probation officers expect to see nearly 60 new offenders released the first week of November, 10 times the normal load. But the office has been working with family members and service providers to prioritize the caseload. "We want to make sure we help people get off to a good start, like we would if we had six cases coming out in the course of a week," said Robert Long, the chief U.S. probation officer for the Middle District, based in Macon.
— In Texas, where Volunteers for America operates two federal halfway houses, officials have been moving people out to the community to make beds available for the next wave leaving prison.
— In Kansas City, Missouri, retired police commander Ron Smith is program director of Second Chance KC. He said his agency helps about 4,000 released prisoners annually from all jails and prisons. Typically, about 475 of those prisoners come from federal lockup, and he doesn't expect that number to swell in November. "There will be some increase but we think we'll be able to handle that," Smith said. "There's nothing to worry about."
— The southern district of Ohio, including Cincinnati, Dayton and Columbus, has about 350 inmates in the early-release program, with 80 to 90 scheduled for release Nov. 1, said Phelps Jones, supervising officer for the U.S. Probation Office in Columbus. Between 20 and 30 of those are people in the country without legal permission being turned over to federal immigration authorities, he said.
War On Drugs
The nonprofit Sentencing Project argues the long prison sentences that grew out of the nation's "War on Drugs" have been ruinous for both families and taxpayers. Executive director Mark Mauer expects the early release of drug offenders to have "a "very minimal" effect on public safety.
"It's not going to release a crime wave, but some number of them are going to recidivate, because that's true of everyone (leaving prison)," he said.
"The reason we have mass incarceration is not because we don't have enough research documenting the problem with it, but, politically, policymakers have been fearful of being soft on crime for too many years," he said. "Now that there's a greater comfort level, we can discuss what would work better."
EDITOR'S NOTE: The largest number - 578 - of federal drug offenders to be released and not deported will be coming to Texas. Since drug offenders are usually involved in other crimes as well, look for many of these individuals to be committing new crimes shortly after their release from prison, their supervision by federal probation officers notwithstanding.
Associated Press
October 25, 2015
Six thousand drug felons are set for release around Nov. 1 as part of a national effort to reduce what have now been deemed too-harsh drug laws. All participants being released are drug offenders no longer deemed a danger to the community.
Who They Are
According to early release petitions obtained by The Associated Press from court records, they include:
— Lincoln Steve White, 43, who was caught buying 2 ounces of cocaine for $1,400 in Florida in 2008 and has served more than five years of a seven-year sentence. He plans to live with a girlfriend and put the heating and air conditioning repair skills he learned in prison to work.
— Chedrick Crummie, 45, who's leaving prison after serving 21 years for cocaine trafficking in South Florida, and has a janitorial job lined up through a local minister.
— Emilio Flores, 43, whose cocaine trafficking sentence fell from 10 years to six under the new guidelines. Flores believes his mental illness and addiction made him easy prey for manipulative drug dealers. Prison didn't help the situation, he said. "The treatment is to medicate the mentally ill into zombies," Flores, of Florida, wrote in his petition.
Where They're Going
About 2,000 of the 6,000 being released soon are being deported. Many others will be steered to traditional probation programs. Most have already been moved to halfway houses or home confinement over the past year, as their sentences were recalculated. Some will go to public or privately run programs that help prisoners ease back into society. How different states are handling the mass release:
— In eastern Pennsylvania, the 45 people being released early are just a blip on a probation department caseload that numbers 2,800 people.
— In Georgia, U.S. probation officers expect to see nearly 60 new offenders released the first week of November, 10 times the normal load. But the office has been working with family members and service providers to prioritize the caseload. "We want to make sure we help people get off to a good start, like we would if we had six cases coming out in the course of a week," said Robert Long, the chief U.S. probation officer for the Middle District, based in Macon.
— In Texas, where Volunteers for America operates two federal halfway houses, officials have been moving people out to the community to make beds available for the next wave leaving prison.
— In Kansas City, Missouri, retired police commander Ron Smith is program director of Second Chance KC. He said his agency helps about 4,000 released prisoners annually from all jails and prisons. Typically, about 475 of those prisoners come from federal lockup, and he doesn't expect that number to swell in November. "There will be some increase but we think we'll be able to handle that," Smith said. "There's nothing to worry about."
— The southern district of Ohio, including Cincinnati, Dayton and Columbus, has about 350 inmates in the early-release program, with 80 to 90 scheduled for release Nov. 1, said Phelps Jones, supervising officer for the U.S. Probation Office in Columbus. Between 20 and 30 of those are people in the country without legal permission being turned over to federal immigration authorities, he said.
War On Drugs
The nonprofit Sentencing Project argues the long prison sentences that grew out of the nation's "War on Drugs" have been ruinous for both families and taxpayers. Executive director Mark Mauer expects the early release of drug offenders to have "a "very minimal" effect on public safety.
"It's not going to release a crime wave, but some number of them are going to recidivate, because that's true of everyone (leaving prison)," he said.
"The reason we have mass incarceration is not because we don't have enough research documenting the problem with it, but, politically, policymakers have been fearful of being soft on crime for too many years," he said. "Now that there's a greater comfort level, we can discuss what would work better."
EDITOR'S NOTE: The largest number - 578 - of federal drug offenders to be released and not deported will be coming to Texas. Since drug offenders are usually involved in other crimes as well, look for many of these individuals to be committing new crimes shortly after their release from prison, their supervision by federal probation officers notwithstanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)