The Washington Post today reports on some crack defendants who were able to leave prison early due to the recent retroactive sentencing guideline reductions. They seem to be coping pretty well, considering the changed world they've returned to after a decade or more behind bars.

More than 7,000 crack cocaine offenders ... have received reduced sentences since March, when the U.S. Sentencing Commission put retroactive sentence guidelines into effect to offset what the commission felt were overly harsh punishments for crack cocaine related crimes, and it is an open question whether they will succeed or return to a life behind bars.

....Nearly 90 percent of those who received the tough sentences for crack cocaine were black men and women. Most users and dealers of powder cocaine are white and Latino.

There were 19,500 federal inmates serving sentences for crack when the reduction went into effect in March. Many aren't eligible for the reduction for a variety of technical reasons. For others, mandatory minimum sentencing laws which trump the guidelines will prevent them from getting a reduced sentence. The Government files objections to scores of requests, arguing either that the reduction doesn't apply to a particular defendant or the court should exercise its discretion and deny the relief.

The recent reduction is but a first baby step towards what's needed to reintroduce fairness into our federal criminal justice system. [More...]

A columnist for the Wichita Eagle compares recent homicide prosecutions and reasonably concludes that the haphazard application of the death penalty makes it unfair in any particular case, no matter how ugly the facts.

With all of the variants, including where and how a murder occurs, who gets killed and the makeup of the jury, the death penalty forces society into the ridiculous practice of comparing tragedies and assigning a sliding scale of value to victims' lives.

Is killing a child as heinous as killing a law officer, or more so? Should we kill rapists? Does the victim's race or the killer's race matter? All of these factors, which we like to pretend don't matter, give the death penalty a capriciousness that ought to make us sick. ...

Our state hasn't executed anyone since 1965, and we simply can't execute anyone anymore without inviting a million moral and ethical questions about the system's fairness.

NYTimes Editorial:

From a letter Herman Perry wrote to his younger brother shortly before his military execution in 1945:

"I did wrong myself please don't make the same mistake its very easy to get in trouble but hell to get out of . . . "

Good advice. Perry's story, by the way, is fascinating.

This is the kind of accident that can happen to anyone, particularly if the driver is inexperienced:

Thornton ... skidded past a stop sign on a poorly lit road and collided with an SUV ....

The two unbelted occupants of the SUV died. William Thornton, a 17 year old black resident of Sumter County, Florida, "had no drugs or alcohol in his system, and no criminal record." Without investigating the case, his lawyer advised Thornton to plead guilty to two counts of vehicular homicide.

A judge sentenced Thornton to 30 years in prison. That's right. Thirty years for the unintended consequences of careless driving. (more ....)

Your turn again.

Joe Gandleman responds to my posts on Obama's VP selection thusly:

YET ANOTHER SUGGESTION OF ENTITLEMENT: . . . Question: if the person who gets the Vice Presidential slot is the one who got the next largest number of votes, then why bother with Veep selections? Or hasn’t it been that the Presidential nominee balances political needs and then makes a decision. There is no entitlement to the V.P. slot.

Of course there is no entitlement to the VP slot. What Joe forgets is there is no entitlement to VOTES either. What Joe and other people commenting on my posts seem not to get is that I am not making an argument that Hillary is entitled to anything - I am making an argument that Obama would be wise to CHOOSE Clinton, as it will help his chances in November. I do wish people would actually address my post instead of dreaming up arguments to refute that I never made.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Since February, I have been concerned that with all the advantages Barack Obama he could still lose the general election largely because the Republicans have nominated the only Republican in the country who can possibly win, John McCain.

This is a Democratic year and significant increases in our existing majorities in House and the Senate are virtually assured. So how can the Presidency not be a sure thing? Three principal reasons.

One, Barack Obama is vulnerable to a vicious Republican attackon who he is and his inexperience. He is a first term Senator who burst on the scene 4 years ago. His image with the American People is vulnerable to a negative attack. The good news is this is definitely a Change election and the new is in vogue. In 1992, Bill Clinton faced similar vulnerabilities and effectively neutralized them. Given Obama's enormous financial advantage, there should be no problem on this point, unless someone bungles the job.

More . . .

Your turn.

Comments closed.

Hillary Clinton gave a great speech yesterday. And Unity is at hand . . .

I'd like to interrupt this Unity Day message with a small reminder to the Barack Obama campaign and the Democratic Party - unless he picks Hillary Clinton as his running mate - the day he announces his Vice Presidential candidate will be a day of disunity.

I hope someone is thinking about that. Because since today is "Why Hillary Lost" Day in the Media, they need to remember that Hillary Clinton got half of the votes. Yes, she lost . . . barely. Obama is in a tight race with John McCain and needs a unified Democratic Party and if he is set on NOT picking Hillary Clinton as his VP, I hope he has a plan for re-unifying the Party the day after he insists on NOT unifying, indeed, in dividing the Party by not choosing Hillary Clinton as his VP.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comments closed

A consensus choice between me, Shelby Sadler and Andrew Travers -- a reporter for the Aspen Daily News and our resident 27 year old DJ. (Anita's already asleep but she would agree.)

This is an open thread. I'll be back in Denver tomorrow and will check in tomorrow night.

Given that his political positions are diametrically opposed to Hillary Clinton's, this is apparently how John McCain hopes to attract Hillary supporters:

Senator John McCain’s campaign is taking a more lighthearted approach to chatting up these women, at least in a new blog it debuted last night, The McCain Report.

The latest entry says, “Attention disaffected Hillary supporters, John McCain is a huge ABBA fan. Seriously.” Embedded is a YouTube video with the famous refrain:

If you change your mind,
I’m the first in line
Honey I’m still free
Take a chance on me

Gag me.

Don't bet the mortgage payment on any horse to win the Triple Crown. It hasn't happened since Affirmed won it all in 1978. Big Brown was this year's hope.

Long Island's favorite horse failed miserably in his quest to become the first Triple Crown winner in 30 years when he pulled up and finished last in a huge upset in the 140th Belmont Stakes on Saturday at Belmont Park.

On the other hand, betting the mortgage payment on the Belmont winner, Da'Tara, would have returned a nice profit at 38-1. (TalkLeft does not endorse gambling with your mortgage money.)

This is an open thread.