Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted May 12, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 12, 2017 Hey Moto .Still the same AG Sessions paves way for stricter sentencing in criminal cases (CNN)Attorney General Jeff Sessions has a new directive for federal prosecutors across the country: charge suspects with the most serious offense you can prove. Friday's announcement follows a line of several other significant departuresfrom Obama-era domestic policies at the Justice Department, but this decision crystalized Sessions' position in the criminal justice realm. In a brief one-and-a-half-page memo, Sessions outlined his new instructions for charging decisions in federal cases, saying that his new first principle is "that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense." "The most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences," Sessions later adds. While the federal sentencing guidelines are advisory -- and take into account everything from a defendant's criminal history to cooperation with authorities --some judges have felt handcuffed by mandatory minimums, which provide a statutory sentencing minimum of months below which the judge cannot depart. Sessions also formally withdrew a signature part of Attorney General Eric Holder's "Smart on Crime" initiative, which sought to target the most serious crimes and reduce the number of defendants charged with non-violent drug offenses that would otherwise trigger mandatory minimum sentences. "We must ensure that our most severe mandatory minimum penalties are reserved for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers," Holder wrote in a 2013 memo. "In some cases, mandatory minimum and recidivist enhancements statutes have resulted in unduly harsh sentences and perceived or actual disparities that do not reflect our Principles of Federal Prosecution." As a result, during the Obama era, federal prosecutors were instructed not to charge someone for a drug crime that would trigger a mandatory minimum sentence if certain specific factors were met: (a) the relevant conduct didn't involve death, violence, a threat of violence or possession of a weapon; (b) the defendant wasn't an organizer, leader or manager of others within a criminal organization; (c) there were no ties to large-scale drug trafficking operations; and (d) the defendant didn't have a "significant" criminal history (i.e., prior convictions). All of those charging factors are now gone under Sessions' reign and not surprising, as he has previously telegraphed his desire to prosecute morefederal cases generally. The effects of Friday's decision are likely to be felt most immediately in the narcotics context where federal mandatory minimums established by Congress can be harsh for even first-time offenders because the sentences are dictated based on drug type and quantity. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/politics/sessions-criminal-charging-memo/index.html?adkey=bn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoor Rider Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Great post snow rider. You're very smart! Have you ever considered running for office? Or I bet you're too busy getting crazy rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 trump and hillary, and the gop and the dems, are about the same as an apple and a rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted May 12, 2017 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 12, 2017 Hope Moto keeps his nose clean and has a backup plan Jeffy might throw the book at him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 12, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 12, 2017 More winning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted May 12, 2017 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 12, 2017 2 minutes ago, Highmark said: More winning! Hey Skidmark - the book would have been thrown at this guy under the previous guidelines What you're supporting is a new set of guidelines that throws non violent drug offenders behind bars and sentencing with max time behind bars. Like usual - you're pedaling a false narrative. Dump appreciates your stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, Highmark said: More winning! I hope you're better at running a business than you are trying to play politics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted May 12, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 12, 2017 18 minutes ago, SnowRider said: Hey Skidmark - the book would have been thrown at this guy under the previous guidelines What you're supporting is a new set of guidelines that throws non violent drug offenders behind bars and sentencing with max time behind bars. Like usual - you're pedaling a false narrative. Dump appreciates your stupidity. He got out under the "previous guidelines." His charges were not drug related. He robbed the same bank twice and even though he didn't have a weapon the second time he threatened "to start shooting people." 9 months Sno is all he got. 9 months. From years of watching real life LE shows drugs and those surround themselves with it escalate to more and more violent crime. Been watching First 48 for 16 years. Seen over 100 murder cases. Rarely and I mean rarely do the killers have an extremely violent past. Their crimes just continue to escalate. I'm all for the legalization of drugs. Hell I'm all for giving them out for free because once you take the money out the violence goes away. Users I have no problem not charging but most of the people Obama released were not users, they were dealers. In the true life murder show above the violence always surrounds the dealers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Just how fucking dumb do you have to be to post this thread knowing what Hillary the cunt has worked for in her life. Are you willfully ignorant SR or just plain stupid https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/04/30/why-hillary-clinton-lacks-credibility-on-criminal-justice-reform/#12bc74d42bac 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Willfully ignorant or just plain dumb???? As first lady in the 1990s, Clinton was a cheerleader for the “tough on crime” policies that produced the “era of mass incarceration” she now condemns. “We need more police,” she said in a 1994 speech. “We need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets.” The Clinton administration gave us all that and more, bragging about building more prisons, locking up more people (including nonviolent offenders) for longer stretches, opposing parole, expanding the death penalty, putting more cops on the street, and implementing a “comprehensive anti-drug strategy.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted May 12, 2017 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 12, 2017 In the 90's Smart people embrace facts and are willing to change if said facts support it. SBYL .7 Many judges oppose mandatory minimums 👍 Ideally 30 years ago it sounded good but the reality is quite different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, SnowRider said: In the 90's Smart people embrace facts and are willing to change if said facts support it. SBYL .7 Many judges oppose mandatory minimums 👍 Ideally 30 years ago it sounded good but the reality is quite different. The fact is she is a pandering cunt and her signature issue as first lady turned us into the incarceration state we are today. Now that its not popular she distances herself from it and you idiots think she changed. How about TPP and free trade. She flipped on that in a matter of months Willfully ignorant and dumb me thinks 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Poor poor stupid as dirt Taintrider by a Bipolarhooknose anarchist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 I see Ben has this thread well in hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 You won't vote for one fascist to keep another fascist from winning so you're an unrealistic 'purist' with impossibly high standards... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 I knew fucking .7ben was going to throw in an op about Hillary wanting to get tough on crime in the 90s as some type of comparison to sessions , today. hell the general thoughts on things like weed alone have changed tremendously since then. what a fucking idiot. hillary would not take these same stances as sessions, but keep dreaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 1 hour ago, motonoggin said: You won't vote for one fascist to keep another fascist from winning so you're an unrealistic 'purist' with impossibly high standards... let's stick to one topic for now - weed. do you think hillaryu would be taking the same stance as sessions and others are? yes or no please, save me your defelective BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 2 hours ago, SnowRider said: Hey Skidmark - the book would have been thrown at this guy under the previous guidelines What you're supporting is a new set of guidelines that throws non violent drug offenders behind bars and sentencing with max time behind bars. Like usual - you're pedaling a false narrative. Dump appreciates your stupidity. That's it in a nutshell, more tax dollars for prisons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Snoslinger said: let's stick to one topic for now - weed. do you think hillaryu would be taking the same stance as sessions and others are? yes or no please, save me your defelective BS. Don't try and bribe me with weed in order to lend support for more global American hegemony. This isn't a game I play anymore. I will only vote for someone who will leave me alone AND end these bullshit wars. If you can't put up a candidate that will do both, then you fucking deserve to lose. Now fuck off with your black and white, binary choice, two party loving, bootlicking ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 You really are no better than Republicans, and you fucking spineless liberals prove that shit every fucking day. You're surprised and threatened by people who won't play your stupid fuck fuck games. Then you blame us when you lose. Die in a fire. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mileage Psycho said: That's it in a nutshell, more tax dollars for prisons ??? So guys who rob banks should get their hands slapped. Or only if it provides them money for weed. Edited May 12, 2017 by ArcticCrusher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted May 12, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Snoslinger said: I knew fucking .7ben was going to throw in an op about Hillary wanting to get tough on crime in the 90s as some type of comparison to sessions , today. hell the general thoughts on things like weed alone have changed tremendously since then. what a fucking idiot. hillary would not take these same stances as sessions, but keep dreaming. Of course you knew Carnac.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoslinger Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 1 hour ago, motonoggin said: Don't try and bribe me with weed in order to lend support for more global American hegemony. This isn't a game I play anymore. I will only vote for someone who will leave me alone AND end these bullshit wars. If you can't put up a candidate that will do both, then you fucking deserve to lose. Now fuck off with your black and white, binary choice, two party loving, bootlicking ass. i knew you wouldn't answer. cause if you did, it'd prove you're an idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T1R9sledder Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 Ben laying the smack down. Impressive........Slinger trying to bail out Coach out as he's beat around like a piñata. Classic FS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted May 12, 2017 Author Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted May 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, Snoslinger said: i knew you wouldn't answer. cause if you did, it'd prove you're an idiot. No shit - Moto is the dumbest Einstein on the interwebs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.