Trump Commutes Alice Johnson's Sentence

Donald Trump has commuted the life sentence of Alice Marie Johnson, who came to his attention through Kim Kardashian, who learned of Johnson on Twitter.

As Kevin Drum writes at Mother Jones, while Johnson should have her sentence commuted, Trump is not due any praise for this.

Just in case anyone is tempted to praise Trump for this, please don’t. Sure, Johnson deserved to have her sentence commuted in some way, and I’m happy for her personally. But Trump has turned the pardon power into a cynical PR tool and this is just more of the same. The pardon power isn’t meant to be a lottery played out at the whim of a man-child in the White House who’s discovered a shiny new toy.


Kevin [snarkily, I hope] suggests eliminating presidential pardon power. I certainly wouldn't agree with that.

What I would focus on in the potential precedential effect of Trump's action -- for once, the scope of the offender's criminal conduct is taking a back seat to his or her rehabilitative efforts in prison.

It's about time offenders convicted of big drug conspiracies who contest the amount of drugs attributed to them at sentencing get some relief. Johnson and one of her co-defendants, Curtis McDonald (also sentenced to life and still in prison)were found by a jury to be the leaders of the Memphis portion of a cocaine distribution and money laundering network that operated from Houston to Memphis over three years, supplied by contacts of the Cali Cartel. From the unpublished court opinion denying their appeal (1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 3549).

[T]he jury found that the Government presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that McDonald, Johnson, McNeil, Lopez, and Valencia participated in a drug trafficking and money-laundering operation which transported cocaine from Houston, Texas and distributed it in Memphis, Tennessee, from 1991 until September, 1994. The jury found that McDonald and Johnson controlled the Memphis end of the conspiracy and directed the distribution of thousands of kilograms of cocaine, as well as controlling the shipment of millions of dollars of drug proceeds back to Houston to the Colombians who controlled the source of the cocaine.

...At trial, a jury found Johnson guilty of the following offences: (1)conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine; (2)attempted
possession of cocaine with intent to deliver;
(3)three counts of attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; (4)conspiracy to commit money laundering; (5)money laundering; and 6) structuring monetary transactions.

The Change.org petition written by her daughter says she was just a phone conduit. Assuming that is true, there sure were a lot of phone calls -- more than 1,000 to her phone alone (and 11,000 for all the conspirators.) From the court opinion:

In addition to the toll analysis introduced at trial regarding specific transaction dates, summary charts were prepared from subpoenaed telephone records and introduced at trial showing all the calls made between cellular telephones, motel telephones, and long distance calls from residential telephones. A "global" summary chart, containing over 11,000 telephone calls from subpoenaed telephone records showed calls made between the parties throughout the conspiracy. Highlights from this chart showed over seven hundred telephone calls from Johnson's telephones to Ramirez's telephones; four hundred and fifty calls from Johnson's telephones to "Leo's" telephones; seven hundred and forty calls from Johnson's telephones to Mondie's telephones; thirty-two calls from Valencia's telephone to Johnson's telephones, and eight hundred and seventy calls alone from one of McDonald's cellular telephones to Johnson's home telephone.

On the money laundering: (from the opinion)

At trial, Ramone Ramirez, a contact of the Colombian Cali drug cartel who lived in Houston, testified that in 1991, he began sending "mules," including Valencia, to Memphis with shipments of cocaine. Valencia and another "mule" testified that on a number of occasions they made deliveries of between five and sixteen kilograms of cocaine to Johnson, and that on several occasions, McDonald gave Valencia and other "mules" between $ 250,000 and $ 500,000 in cash to be taken back to Ramirez and the other Colombians in Houston. (emphasis supplied)
Because of the increasing suspicion from the numerous hotel stays, Valencia testified that Ramirez spoke with Johnson about renting an apartment in which the "mules" could stay during their trips to Memphis. Lieutenant Keith Allen, with the Texas Department of Public Safety, testified that in July, Johnson rented an apartment in Memphis in her daughter's name for Valencia and the other "mules" to use.

According to the court opinion, Johnson also invested the profits from trafficking.

Johnson was a factory worker for Kelloggs in Memphis. Tax returns introduced at trial showed Johnson reported her income for 1991 to be $ 15,753 and $ 20,163 for 1992. Johnson did not file tax returns in 1993 or 1994. She filed for personal bankruptcy in 1991 and her house on Queen Elizabeth Street was foreclosed on August 23, 1991. Yet, on September 27, Johnson purchased a new home in the name of her daughter at 5441 Fieldcrest. In addition to a $ 21,430 down payment on her new house, Johnson also made approximately $ 19,000 in cash down payments on three new cars from February 1992 until November 1992. The $21,430 down payment on the Fieldcrest home
consisted of two cashier's checks in the amounts of $ 9,100 and $ 9,900, along with $2,430 in cash.

In Trump's view, Johnson's good deeds and rehabilitative efforts as an inmate trumped her offense. This should open a lot of doors to other traffickers.

Also, after Johnson, it may not matter anymore how long you wait to acknowledge your guilt. Under the criteria for commutations,those who are still challenging their convictions and sentences are generally ineligible:

Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.

Johnson has admitted her guilt and expressed remorse for her illegal conduct. But she is also, as of today according to the court docket on PACER, still challenging her sentence on grounds of innocence as to the conduct for which she was convicted and sentenced. In February 2018, her newest lawyer filed a motion for reduction of sentence based on her refutation of the amount of drugs in her case, saying she always asserted her innocence. He wrote: "At all times during trial, sentencing and appeal, Defendant maintained her innocence." The motion has not yet been ruled on.

As an aside, what sentence did Ramirez, the cooperator and Cali Cartel contact who supplied Johnson and the others with thousands of kilograms and collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from them get? None, besides time already served since his arrest, provided he turn himself over to ICE for removal.

Congrats to Alice Johnson. She served more time than was necessary to accomplish any recognized sentencing purpose. I hope her commutation has precedential value for other drug traffickers seeking early release from their bloated unjust and disproportionate sentences due to their rehabilitative efforts in prison and lack of violent behavior. After all, there are more than 8,900 requests pending as of 6/1/18) for inmates who don't have a Kardashian in their back pocket. Trump has now granted 2 and denied 98. He needs to get cracking. There are many more waiting where Alice Johnson sprang from.

< Mexico Imposes Tariffs on U.S. Exports | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No one should receive a sentence (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Peter G on Wed Jun 06, 2018 at 05:01:41 PM EST
    of life without parole for any drug distribution case that does not include direct responsibility for a murder. And not necessarily even then. As J says, however, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of similar life sentences now being served in federal prisons in similar cases, and zillions of ridiculous terms of years. Obama commuted a little over a thousand excessive sentences in his last two years, mostly in drug cases, and could have done five or ten times as many. Tr*mp should establish a system for doing the same.

    "Tr*mp should (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 07, 2018 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    establish a system for doing the same."   Nice thought, but not in keeping with Trump--administration by bedlam.  He is more likely to announce pardons under the seats of his followers at his next rally.  And, for that crowd, more valuable than than a Pontiac.  

    What am I missing? (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 06, 2018 at 07:13:40 PM EST
    wouldn't it be the no-brainer of all no-brainers for the U.S to simply emulate how the nations with lowest recidivism rates deal with their convicted criminals, rather than to continue on with a system that insures a semi-permanent criminal underclass?

    Proven cause and effect? (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 07, 2018 at 01:02:39 PM EST
    It is called inductive reasoning (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 07, 2018 at 04:05:40 PM EST
    You know, the backbone of the scientific method.  Undoubtedly many , including climate change deniers and those who dispute the Theory of Evolution, have issues with such.

    But nice to stack the deck with a very high burden of proof here.

    What proof do you have the current laws are effective?  There is plenty to the contrary.


    The tobacco companies (none / 0) (#6)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 07, 2018 at 04:18:45 PM EST
    argued for years that correlation is not causation, and that there was no actual proof that tobacco causes cancer.

    Sure. Require an an exacting standard of proof.  Science and modern society, however, are based on making decisions without having 100% proof.


    In the absense of proof, it's wise of you (1.50 / 2) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 07, 2018 at 04:28:01 PM EST
    to declare that proof is not important.

    Twisitng words (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 07, 2018 at 04:34:14 PM EST
    There is plenty of evidence.  

    But  your standard of what constitutes "proof" as defined by you.  Who knows how you define that, except to say there is none.

    Do you understand inductive reasoning and the scientific method?  


    That's not (none / 0) (#9)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 07, 2018 at 05:33:45 PM EST
    What he said.
    Reading is fundamental.

    Puhleeze. (1.00 / 3) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 07, 2018 at 06:17:06 PM EST
    It has yet to proven (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 12:28:36 AM EST
    that the way people are treated has an effect on how they behave.

    Is that you're claiming, suo?


    Nah, just proof of whatever you were (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 10:21:01 AM EST
    trying to claim in your comment would be fine.

    Nah, it's obvious it wouldn't be fine (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    if I sighted a study, you'd just assiduously track down some other study that seemed to contradict the findings of the one I sighted.

    When you try to talk to conservatives about things like criminal rehabilitation, we're delving into a realm that's utterly impervious to reason. You'd rather build more prisons then spend a red cent helping anyone reintegrate back into society.


    your feelings, and other people find studies that contradict them, it is the other people who are impervious to reason.

    Who said anything about "feelings"? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 11:58:04 AM EST
    The fact that other countries have recidivism rates in some cases 50% lower than the U.S isn't a matter of anyone's feelings.

    What you claim as "fact" is not so... (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    ...and your original comment tied in several other additional claims as well, for which you continue to supply no support.

    But, since you seem to want to talk about recidivism rates.

    Via the NIH:

    A Systematic Review of Criminal Recidivism Rates Worldwide: Current Difficulties and Recommendations for Best Practice



    Recidivism data are currently not valid for international comparisons.

    What other "additional claims" (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 01:15:53 PM EST
    are you referring to?

    Predictably, the study you found a study which focused on the countries with the worst track records of rehabilitation, while ignoring countries like Norway that does keep track of recidivism data and has a  significantly lower rate than the U.S.

    We don't need to have data from every country on the planet to emulate those countries that get the best results.


    Utterly impervious to reason. (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 01:56:21 PM EST
    What other claims?!

    How about the claim that "emulating" other nation's "system" will fix our recidivism? Or the claim that our system "insures (sic) a semi-permanent criminal underclass?" Or the claim is that recidivism rates are the result of the "system?" etc.

    Predictably, the study you found a study which focused on the countries with the worst track records of rehabilitation, while ignoring countries like Norway that does keep track of recidivism data and has a  significantly lower rate than the U.S.

    Is this a joke? Seriously, are you for real?

    The study absolutely includes Norway. In both the data as well as the analysis. The study focuses on the "20 countries with the largest total prison populations worldwide" and Norway is absolutely one of the countries studied.

    Clearly you are off the rails on this one.


    Maybe I should've said (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    resistent to clear, honest communication.

    Norway decidedly isn't one of the "20 countries with the largest prison populations." Are we clear on that, or do you need to look it up?

    There was a brief mention of problems in determining precisely how recidivism is measured in Norway as compared to other countries, but whether it's the low figure of 14% or the high of 42%, the stark numerical realities would strongly suggest that we have the humility to study what other countries obviously do better than we do.

    Nobody said anything about magically "fixing" the problem of recidivism, but there's no reason why we shouldn't be open to the idea of learning from other's examples and trying out new ideas.


    that the country that you are apparently most fanboy about, Norway, actually was, yes, specifically, included in the study.

    As you said, Norway's actual rate could be anywhere from 14% to 42%. Since the equivalent US rate is 36%, and Norway's could be as high as 42%, should we really emulate what Norway's doing?

    OK, ya, you did actually tone-down it down from your first comment, from

    no-brainer of all no-brainers for the U.S to simply emulate
    to, now,
    learn from others.

    So we are actually getting somewhere.

    Sure, I have no problem learning from others and trying out new ideas, especially when they are at least nominally w/in our country's culture and population sets. Oregon's rate is apparently 23% vs. 61% in Minnesota, let's start with studying why the rate is so much lower in Oregon.

    But it seems to me that the first and most important thing to figure out is why some convicted criminals recidivate.

    And, no, I do not believe what you seemed to be trying to say, that the reason they go back to doing their crimes of assault or rape or robbery or drugs or whatever is because they are miffed at how they were treated when incarcerated.


    Your wide metric is spurious (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by linea on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 08:45:08 PM EST
    Typically, the term recidivism refers to those who have been re-convicted of a crime after previously being convicted and imprisoned. The oddly wide range (14% to 42%) in the document you cite includes metrics for persons re-arrested but not convicted and even persons arrested twice but never convicted. That metric is, by any reasonable measure, spurious.

    From your article:

    In Norway, 2-year recidivism rates ranged from 14% to 42% depending on whether the sample included arrested, convicted or imprisoned persons and/or the outcome was arrest, conviction or imprisonment.[2]

    Norway still has programs focused on rehabilitation which is no longer a focus of the US system. The US system went from a concept of Christian penance (hence Penitentiary), to reform or rehabilitation (hence Reformatory), to the current concept of warehousing (hence Detention). The US has simply abandoned any serious efforts at rehabilitation.

    Why Norway's prison system is so successful

    In Norway, fewer than 4,000 of the country's 5 million people were behind bars as of August 2014. That makes Norway's incarceration rate just 75 per 100,000 people, compared to 707 people for every 100,000 people in the US.

    On top of that, when criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. The US has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years.

    In my opinion, it's simply ridiculous for you to discount the success that countries like Norway and Sweden have in lowering their recidivism rate.

    As an aside, it is my opinion that criminal conviction records either be sealed documents or the US should prohibit potential employers and potential landlords from accessing criminal records. In my opinion, only specific types of crimes and specific types of jobs require that information. At the very least, the US should pass something like the UK `Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.'


    Ah, reasonable discourse. (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 10:46:07 PM EST
    I think if you read my comments you will not find me discounting Norway's success. I think you will find me questioning whether there is a cause and effect in how we treat convicted criminal and does that cause them to recidivate.

    Norway has a much lower incarceration rate than we do, to my mind that would suggest a much lower recidivism  rate as well, regardless of how the prisoners felt they were treated while incarcerated. So what is the cause of the low Norwegian recidivism rate?

    I just spent almost two weeks in Iceland and Norway (and Lithuania).

    Iceland and Norway are, literally, different worlds from the US.

    There is essentially no trash anywhere, no gum stuck on sidewalks, not a blade of grass out of place on any lawn, no peeling paint on any house, every car is clean and new, no homeless, no potholes, and basically no crime, compared to the US.

    These are very small countries compared to the US. Their people are very homogenous. They take much pride in their shared history and are raised with a mindset that binds them each to the other. They truly think of themselves as a united clan with responsibilities to care for and lookout each other.

    Heck, in Iceland anyway, they are essentially all related by blood.

    My wife and I are involved in this charitable organization: Defy Ventures. It has had its ups and downs, but overall much success. Why? Because it screens out like 99% of the applicants and only accepts that small number of convicted criminals that are determined by the screening process to be a really good bet. I would expect that in Iceland and Norway, by the same process, probably 80-90% or more of applicants would be accepted.

    As I said to jondee,

    Sure, I have no problem learning from others and trying out new ideas, especially when they are at least nominally w/in our country's culture and population sets. Oregon's rate is apparently 23% vs. 61% in Minnesota, let's start with studying why the rate is so much lower in Oregon.

    Ah willful cluelessness (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 12:00:49 AM EST
    with bells on.

    What's unreasonable about suggesting that a person's experience in prison can detrimentally effect their ability to reintegrate into society?

    Is that possibility really that much of an imaginative stretch for you? Apparently.


    for drugs, theft, sex crimes,assault, etc., etc., simply goes back to the same neighborhood, friends, etc., and ends up back in the same lifestyle that got them into trouble in the first place. In most cases. I'm sure there are the outlier cases similar to what that you describe.

    Got proof for that? (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 10:28:10 AM EST
    And? (none / 0) (#29)
    by linea on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 11:31:18 PM EST
    Re: `I just spent almost two weeks in Iceland and Norway (and Lithuania).'

    What is your impression of Vilnius? I assume you did not visit the countryside, tourists generally do not.

    Of the medieval old towns in Northern Europe, I love Tallinn (and Kerli) more than Riga. I've never been to Lithuania. Your feelings?


    showed us around for several days and we had a great time. We stayed in a beautiful air B&B downtown, and loved the walk-everywhere vibe of the ancient city. We also spent a day at Trakai. So, yes, all tourist areas and we will return!

    Off the cuff cultural (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 10:27:15 AM EST
    judgments by conservatives, especially by conservatives touting the superiority of white northern European culture, are frankly unnerving.

    We had a commentator here, since banned, who routinely touted the superiority of Northern European Culture over Southern European Culture and Latino Culture.

    And where is your study?  You insisted that Jondee have one, but you can rely on your own two week personal observations--that they are really good at cutting the grass and picking up the garbage in Norway--to come to clear conclusions?

    This is of course where you were going when you said you needed proof that using a similar correctional system here would yield similar results.  One could smell it a mile away.


    Oy, more bombastic hysteria from our MKS. (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 12:05:47 PM EST
    But, sure.

    There is obviously much more to this topic than I wrote above, and there is more research to be done in this area, but yes, I think it's important, and unlike many factors that contribute to recidivism, potentially addressable. Potentially addressable probably due to education while in prison, so yes, I'm with jondee on this aspect, if that is what he was talking about.

    Most of the prior empirical and theoretical literature focuses on individual and social factors associated with recidivism. Only recently have empirical studies begun to investigate the role of the neighborhood environment on reentry outcomes. The focus on individual characteristics has occurred because the risk of reoffending has traditionally been viewed as individually determined (Kubrin & Stewart, 2006). This perspective, however, ignores the body of evidence concerning the strong independent influence of neighborhood contextual factors that have been found to affect various other behavioral and health risk factors and outcomes, in such diverse domains as coronary heart disease and adult physical health (Diez-Roux, 2001; Galea, Rudenstine, & Vlahov, 2005; Pickett & Pearl, 2001; Ross & Mirowsky, 2001), mental health disorders (Boardman, Finch, Ellison, Williams, & Jackson, 2001; Mair, Diez-Roux, & Galea, 2008; Sampson et al., 2002; Silver, Mulvey, & Swanson, 2002; Stahler et al., 2007; Stahler, Mennis, Cotlar, & Baron, 2009), as well as criminal behavior (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997; Sampson et al., 2002). As Sampson et al. (2002) conclude in their review of the "neighborhood effects" research that investigates the relationship between crime and the neighborhood context, "the weight of evidence ... suggests that there are geographic `hot spots' for crime and problem-related behaviors and that such hot spots are characterized by the concentration of multiple forms of disadvantage" (p. 446).

    So, a supportive environment (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 03:31:15 PM EST
    is helpful.  Who would have thunk it?

    Not really the same as Norway's inmates being so different than U.S. inmates, that it is an apples to oranges comparison, is it?

    All people are basically the same everywhere.   We are more alike than different.  Some really do not believe that.


    I strongly suspect we've been discussing things (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 04:09:09 PM EST
    with someone who, after a few belts, might be inclined to start railing about The People's Republic of Norway-Denmark-and-Netherlands.

    Well, I thought I was pretty clear that (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    I don't think recidivists are motivated to commit additional crimes that put them back in prison because they were unhappy with our prison system the first time through.

    And that the cultures of Norway and Iceland are much different than the US which is reflective in their much lower incarceration and recidivism rates. And therefor I also don't think it's a no-brainer of no-brainers to emulate Norway's penal system.


    I hope you're not suggesting (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 05:30:12 PM EST
    that the prison experience isn't painful and dehumanizing enough, because that's what it sounds like you're suggesting.

    People don't suffer enough in there, that's why they want to go back.

    What about first-time offenders? Do they commit crimes because they heard prison was the next thing to Club Med?There are a thousand reasons why people commit crimes, besides the fact that they haven't been punished severely enough.


    Unhappy with the prison experience? (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 05:47:35 PM EST

    That was not the idea at al.  It is that the prison experience did not actually result in rehabilitation.

     Couldn't resist another run at how different the cultures are of Norway and the U.S?  Relying again on your two weeks' of observations of how well they cut the grass in Norway.  

    So, how is the U.S. culture different than Norway.   Or, more specifically, how are the inmates different in both cultures?  Does it have to do our urban centers?


    One difference in the "cultures" (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 05:55:28 PM EST
    Norway is part of "godless" Europe.  
    Was that you were referring to?  Maybe not.  

    And over here we have cultures (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 06:52:52 PM EST
    where people like to go to prison. Because they get free stuff or something.

    involved in much of this conversation and I was not talking about the part that you were involved in.

    My comments on the differences in the cultures are plainly written above in previous comments, I don't really see the need to repeat myself.


    Sorry, Im lost (none / 0) (#47)
    by linea on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 10:51:10 PM EST
    I'm not understanding `culture' vis a vis recidivism. Counties like Norway and Sweden put MONEY and RESOURCES and fund PROGRAMS focusing of reintegration. While they don't have the best or perfect programs, it's still better than the US system which has abandoned rehabilitation and actively PREVENTS reintegration. Am I wrong?

    is that in Iceland and Norway the the people care more than they do here.

    The streets are clean there because the people care. They care about how their streets look and also they know their fellow countrymen care about how their streets look, and they care about and don't want to disrespect their countrymen. As a result they put their Starbucks cups and cigarette butts in the garbage instead of dumping them out the windows of their cars.

    I think their crime rate is so low compared to the US because they care. They care about their fellow countrymen so they don't steal their cars as they know that will hurt their countrymen. They keep their houses looking nice because they care about how their house looks, and they know their neighbors don't want to live next to a sh1tpile.

    I don't think it's a "no-brainer of no-brainers" to expect that emulating a system that seems to work well with people who care more will work the same way with people who care less.


    Link? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 11, 2018 at 09:32:53 PM EST
    Opening phrase: "I think" (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 11, 2018 at 10:12:29 PM EST
    Miffed. Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 08:48:50 PM EST
    Try traumatized, brutalized, and left with the bare minimum of inner or outer resources with which to defend themselves when released back into society, as 90% of them are.

    And, I realize I'm talking to the proverbial (very thick) wall, but what orifice of alternate conservative facts did you pull that 36% in the U.S out of? Because the recidivism rates in the U.S I'm seeing are all in the mid-70s.


    Ok, according to the 2016 study (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 09:16:12 PM EST
    I'm seeing, in the U.S it's 76.6% for those released from state prison and 44.7% for those released from federal prison.

    In what cutting-edge mathematical system does that average out to 36%?


    only available/presented for 2 years after prison release. The US 2 year stats from that article are 36%.

    Also, you will probably notice that Norway's 2 years stats are not 14% to 42%, rather they are 20%. So the two stats are not equivalent. That's my bad, I didn't realize it when I posted.


    Awesome!! (none / 0) (#27)
    by linea on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 10:29:28 PM EST
    Than we agree? The US is doing a disservice to those persons incarcerated and those who have served their time by not having special programs focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration. Yes?

    State v Federal (none / 0) (#25)
    by linea on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    There are about one million and four hundred thousand (1,400,000) persons serving time in State prisons and about 200,000 in Federal prison.

    This was never about Alice (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 10:03:51 AM EST
    It was about making the low information voter accept pardons are a normal and usual process.

    Because other pardons are coming      

    The Cheeto is (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 10:34:42 AM EST
    not happy that the Iggles did not love him. And that the Warriors will not love him.

    He needs to make a grand gesture to make African Americans thank him, and recognize his greatness.  So, he says he is thinking about giving a pardon to Muhammed Ali.  


    Maybe he can pardon... (none / 0) (#40)
    by desertswine on Sat Jun 09, 2018 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    Willie Horton (not the baseball player) for services rendered to the Republican Party.

    to be proven.. (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 08, 2018 at 12:29:04 AM EST