Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama plans clemency for hundreds of drug offenders

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama plans clemency for hundreds of drug offenders

    UBLIN, Calif—Scrawled on the inside of Barbara Scrivner's left arm is a primitive prison tattoo that says "Time Flies."

    If only that were the case.

    For Scrivner, time has crawled, it's dawdled, and on bad days, it's felt like it's stood completely still. She was 27 years old when she started serving a 30-year sentence in federal prison for selling a few ounces of methamphetamine. Now, 20 years later, she feels like she's still living in the early '90s—she's never seen or touched a cellphone, she still listens to her favorite band, the Scorpions, and she carefully coats her eyelids in electric blue eye shadow in the morning.

    It's out there, outside of prison, where time flies.

    On a sunny afternoon at a federal prison outside San Francisco last month, Scrivner nervously clutched a manila envelope full of photos of herself and her daughter that she keeps in her cell. As she displays the pictures, Scrivner’s daughter Alannah, who was just 2 years old when her mom was put away, changes from a redheaded, freckled young kid to a sullen teen to a struggling young mom. Scrivner changes in the photos, too. At first she's a plump-cheeked beauty with chestnut-brown hair, then she’s a bleached-blonde woman in her early 30s, before becoming increasingly gaunt as the years grind on.

    Today, she most resembles a 40-something high school volleyball coach, in her grey sweatshirt and neatly brushed-out dark bangs. But instead of a whistle around her neck, Barbara wears a large silver crucifix — though she describes her relationship with God as "complicated."

    "I believe in God," Scrivner says. "I'm really mad with him."

    Her faith has helped her to try to make sense of what feels like an arbitrarily, even cruelly long sentence for her minor role helping her drug dealer husband. But 20 years behind bars has also tested that faith, and even caused her to question whether her life has any meaning or is worth living.

    Scrivner is one of those rare prisoners who nearly everyone agrees is serving too much time for her crime. She started using drugs when she was just 8 years old, and moved on to meth as a freshman in high school, when she began dating the first of a long string of drug-using boyfriends. The drugs helped her escape the fog of depression that settled over her, in part created by the confused anguish she felt about being sexually abused as a child. By the time she was 20, she had been busted and served time in state prison for possessing meth — twice. That's when she met her husband, a heroin addict and meth dealer who became her downfall. When his drug ring was broken up by the feds, Scrivner refused to testify against him or any other members. She was prosecuted for conspiracy and slammed with a 30-year mandatory minimum, despite her minor role as an occasional helper to her husband.

    The judge who sentenced her to 30 years said his hands were tied. He was forced to lock her up for that long because of a now-defunct mandatory minimum-sentencing regime. If he heard her case today, he'd give her 10 or 15 years, he's said. The prosecutors in the Portland, Ore., office that charged her agreed that if she were prosecuted today, she'd almost certainly get a sentence shorter than the 20 years she's already served.

    Thousands and thousands of people like Scrivner are serving punishingly long sentences in federal prison based on draconian policies that were a relic of the "tough on crime" antidrug laws of the '80s and '90s. Thirty years after skyrocketing urban violence and drug use sparked politicians to impose longer and longer sentences for drug crimes, America now incarcerates a higher rate of its population than any other country in the world. This dubious record has finally provoked a bipartisan backlash against such stiff penalties. The old laws are slowly being repealed.

    Now, in his final years in office, Obama has trained his sights on prisoners like Scrivner, and wants to use his previously dormant pardon power as part of a larger strategy to restore fairness to the criminal-justice system. A senior administration official tells Yahoo News the president could grant clemency to "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of people locked up for nonviolent drug crimes by the time he leaves office — a stunning number that hasn't been seen since Gerald Ford extended amnesty to Vietnam draft dodgers in the 1970s.

    The scope of the new clemency initiative is so large that administration officials are preparing a series of personnel and process changes to help them manage the influx of petitions they expect Obama to approve. Among the changes is reforming the recently censured office within the Justice Department responsible for processing pardon petitions. Yahoo News has learned that the pardon attorney, Ronald Rodgers, who was criticized in a 2012 Internal watchdog report for mishandling a high-profile clemency petition, is likely to step down as part of that overhaul. Additional procedures for handling large numbers of clemency petitions could be announced as soon as this week, a senior administration official said, though it could take longer.


    More at Link
    May we raise children who love the unloved things - the dandelion, the worm, the spiderlings.
    Children who sense the rose needs the thorn and run into rainswept days the same way they turn towards the sun...
    And when they're grown and someone has to speak for those who have no voice,
    may they draw upon that wilder bond, those days of tending tender things and be the one.

  • #2
    Maybe they can roll out a web site to handle the applications.
    Enjoy.

    Comment


    • #3
      I wonder how or if they will distinguish between the person who simply got pulled over with an ounce of meth and the one who plea bargained for conviction on possession in exchange for testimony against a murder they might otherwise have been convicted of accessory to.
      The year's at the spring
      And day's at the morn;
      Morning's at seven;
      The hill-side's dew-pearled;
      The lark's on the wing;
      The snail's on the thorn:
      God's in his heaven—
      All's right with the world!

      Comment


      • #4
        *sigh*

        So this is the best example that they've got? And they have to lie about it at that?


        "For Scrivner, time has crawled, it's dawdled, and on bad days, it's felt like it's stood completely still. She was 27 years old when she started serving a 30-year sentence in federal prison for selling a few ounces of methamphetamine."

        That's patently untrue:

        "Barbara was held accountable for 108.9 kilograms of meth: 93 kilograms extrapolated from the nitroethane in the drum and 15.9 kilograms that the government estimated the conspiracy distributed between July and November 1992. Though the government determined Barbara was a minor participant, her prior convictions elevated her sentencing guideline range to 292 to 365 months. Barbara was sentenced to 360 months, or 30 years, in federal prison. "

        And that's exactly, legally, ethically, and morally right: when you're a willing participant in a criminal enterprise, you're legally, ethically, and morally responsible for all of the crimes that the enterprise commits. It's absolutely no different than charging the "wheel man" for murder when a bank robbery goes wrong and that bank guard gets blown away. It DOES NOT MATTER that the "wheel man" never set foot inside the bank; he is JUST as responsible under the law as the guy who pulled the trigger.

        So, no, she's not serving thirty years "for selling a few ounces of meth;" she's serving thirty years for selling a shitload of meth in a criminal enterprise, and on top of that, she already had spent time in prison before for her meth habit:

        "By the time she was 20, she had been busted and served time in state prison for possessing meth — twice."

        She's a three-time loser who is solely responsible for her own predicament, not only because she refuses to this very day to learn that she shouldn't be using meth (much less dealing it or engaged in a major meth manufacturing operation), but she also refused a FAAARRRR more lenient sentence because she refused to testify against her co-conspirators. She's very obviously going to run right back to meth the moment she gets sprung. She's already pimping herself out from her jail cell in advance of this.


        Pity meter pegged at negative infinity. She deserves every second of a thirty-year sentence. It was universally agreed at the time that she got her sentence that people peddling a shit-ton of meth should get a shit-ton of prison time. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.


        The only thing clemency does in this case is send the message to people like me, who already knew that these supposed tough prison sentences for criminals don't really exist.
        It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
        In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
        Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
        Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Adam View Post
          *sigh*

          So this is the best example that they've got? And they have to lie about it at that?


          "For Scrivner, time has crawled, it's dawdled, and on bad days, it's felt like it's stood completely still. She was 27 years old when she started serving a 30-year sentence in federal prison for selling a few ounces of methamphetamine."

          That's patently untrue:

          "Barbara was held accountable for 108.9 kilograms of meth: 93 kilograms extrapolated from the nitroethane in the drum and 15.9 kilograms that the government estimated the conspiracy distributed between July and November 1992. Though the government determined Barbara was a minor participant, her prior convictions elevated her sentencing guideline range to 292 to 365 months. Barbara was sentenced to 360 months, or 30 years, in federal prison. "

          And that's exactly, legally, ethically, and morally right: when you're a willing participant in a criminal enterprise, you're legally, ethically, and morally responsible for all of the crimes that the enterprise commits. It's absolutely no different than charging the "wheel man" for murder when a bank robbery goes wrong and that bank guard gets blown away. It DOES NOT MATTER that the "wheel man" never set foot inside the bank; he is JUST as responsible under the law as the guy who pulled the trigger.

          So, no, she's not serving thirty years "for selling a few ounces of meth;" she's serving thirty years for selling a shitload of meth in a criminal enterprise, and on top of that, she already had spent time in prison before for her meth habit:

          "By the time she was 20, she had been busted and served time in state prison for possessing meth — twice."

          She's a three-time loser who is solely responsible for her own predicament, not only because she refuses to this very day to learn that she shouldn't be using meth (much less dealing it or engaged in a major meth manufacturing operation), but she also refused a FAAARRRR more lenient sentence because she refused to testify against her co-conspirators. She's very obviously going to run right back to meth the moment she gets sprung. She's already pimping herself out from her jail cell in advance of this.


          Pity meter pegged at negative infinity. She deserves every second of a thirty-year sentence. It was universally agreed at the time that she got her sentence that people peddling a shit-ton of meth should get a shit-ton of prison time. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.


          The only thing clemency does in this case is send the message to people like me, who already knew that these supposed tough prison sentences for criminals don't really exist.
          What do we know about this boyfriend of hers? Is he somebody who would have let her live if she testified against him? Could the prosecutor guarantee a conviction and her safety after it happened? Would he need to be a free man to kill somebody or does he have organized crime where he can do stuff even from prison?

          We seriously need to legalize drugs. If it's legalized, then they will be regulated and taxed by the government. We won't use so much money on jailing people. People won't die so often from drug dealing related incidents. The money that we use to put people in jail could instead be used to help addicts rehabilitate.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Lanie View Post
            What do we know about this boyfriend of hers?
            Husband, and he was in prison when he went on trial, and got another thirty-year sentence.

            Originally posted by Lanie View Post
            Is he somebody who would have let her live if she testified against him? Could the prosecutor guarantee a conviction and her safety after it happened? Would he need to be a free man to kill somebody or does he have organized crime where he can do stuff even from prison?
            If that was genuinely the case, then she could have gotten witness protection. Since he still got a thirty-year sentence, if he had enough "reach" to have her killed outside of prison, then he definitely had enough "reach" to get her killed inside of prison, and that didn't happen.

            Ergo, he was not a threat to her if she had testified.

            Originally posted by Lanie View Post
            We seriously need to legalize drugs. If it's legalized, then they will be regulated and taxed by the government. We won't use so much money on jailing people. People won't die so often from drug dealing related incidents. The money that we use to put people in jail could instead be used to help addicts rehabilitate.
            I agree that the federal government needs to get out of the drug-regulating business, but the rest of this is a pipe dream (pun intended) that will never come true.

            No, that money will not help those people rehabilitate. An overwhelming majority of these addicts just go right back to using again. Study after study shows that long-term, junkies seldom actually stop using just because they went through some rehab program. Nearly half of all people who have been deemed "rehabilitated" from drug use are using drugs again within a year of their "rehabilitation." In five-year and ten-year examinations, something close to 80% will have "relapsed" at some point.

            "Rehabilitation" is a feel-good pipe dream that doesn't work. It has never worked. It never will work.
            It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
            In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
            Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
            Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

            Comment


            • #7
              First of all, she could not be compelled to testify 'against her husband'... and her refusal would have zero to to with her sentencing.

              She refused to testify about the workings of the criminal enterprise he was part of.
              Robert Francis O'Rourke, Democrat, White guy, spent ~78 million to defeat, Ted Cruz, Republican immigrant Dark guy …
              and lost …
              But the Republicans are racist.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lanie View Post
                We seriously need to legalize drugs.
                Meth?

                Seriously?

                I have an affinity for milder forms of speed.
                I haven't touched any of that since the mid 70's. (my daughter was born in '74)
                When I was doing speed, it was always the milder, what would be subscription forms.

                Meth is the most insidious form of speed.
                In the '60s, it's fore runners were injectable forms of amphetamine derivatives.
                Once you reached that point on the speed wagon, it was down hill.
                Robert Francis O'Rourke, Democrat, White guy, spent ~78 million to defeat, Ted Cruz, Republican immigrant Dark guy …
                and lost …
                But the Republicans are racist.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adam View Post
                  No, that money will not help those people rehabilitate. An overwhelming majority of these addicts just go right back to using again. Study after study shows that long-term, junkies seldom actually stop using just because they went through some rehab program. Nearly half of all people who have been deemed "rehabilitated" from drug use are using drugs again within a year of their "rehabilitation." In five-year and ten-year examinations, something close to 80% will have "relapsed" at some point.

                  "Rehabilitation" is a feel-good pipe dream that doesn't work. It has never worked. It never will work.
                  Now here we have something we can agree on. There are occasional success stories, but someone who has been using since childhood is probably irredeemable. Doesn't mean we can't use the tax revenue from drug sales to otherwise mitigate the societal fallout of drug abuse.

                  My main reason for supporting legalization is that readily available, lower-priced drugs may allow these parasites to off themselves with fewer consequences to the rest of us. Hell, make the junk free, on condition that they check into a state facility to use. Get'em off the street, out of the ER, and into a place where they can kill themselves without endangering others.
                  "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Adam View Post
                    No, that money will not help those people rehabilitate. An overwhelming majority of these addicts just go right back to using again. Study after study shows that long-term, junkies seldom actually stop using just because they went through some rehab program. Nearly half of all people who have been deemed "rehabilitated" from drug use are using drugs again within a year of their "rehabilitation." In five-year and ten-year examinations, something close to 80% will have "relapsed" at some point.

                    "Rehabilitation" is a feel-good pipe dream that doesn't work. It has never worked. It never will work.
                    I have to want to get help and to stay well. That said, I refuse to believe in throwing people away, which is what our current system does. I also have to say that other countries have higher success rates with rehabilitation than we do. There has to be a reason for that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Lanie View Post
                      I have to want to get help and to stay well. That said, I refuse to believe in throwing people away, which is what our current system does. I also have to say that other countries have higher success rates with rehabilitation than we do. There has to be a reason for that.
                      Confirm that with something other than a statement.

                      You might probably define 'rehabilitation' prior to proving your assertion.
                      Robert Francis O'Rourke, Democrat, White guy, spent ~78 million to defeat, Ted Cruz, Republican immigrant Dark guy …
                      and lost …
                      But the Republicans are racist.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Gramps View Post
                        Meth?

                        Seriously?

                        I have an affinity for milder forms of speed.
                        I haven't touched any of that since the mid 70's. (my daughter was born in '74)
                        When I was doing speed, it was always the milder, what would be subscription forms.

                        Meth is the most insidious form of speed.
                        In the '60s, it's fore runners were injectable forms of amphetamine derivatives.
                        Once you reached that point on the speed wagon, it was down hill.
                        Meth could go either way for me.

                        I wouldn't cry if it weren't legalized, and I wouldn't jump for joy if it weren't. It's one drug that would benefit from enforced purity standards, which would practically eliminate the "meth mouth" syndrome that various small town sheriffs like to trot out as examples of why it's a bad drug.

                        I knew and worked with several moderate to heavy users whose teeth and gums were in superb condition, because they weren't crack whores who forgot what a toothbrush looked like. For now, even I still have all my teeth despite having some underlying medical issues that should have put me on the fast track to lost-tooth city.

                        Then again, maybe my dozen examples (including myself) were the outliers. Only one of our group fell so hard he needed "straightening out", the rest of us managed our use better. In the time we lost one to meth at that job, we lost two to alcohol and one to prescription pain pills.

                        Of course, legalizing something hard like meth doesn't guarantee it won't still be abused, and I have no idea how that could be controlled because it's probably as bad as heroin on the "desire to do it again soon" scale.
                        “Any sufficiently advanced capitalism is indistinguishable from rent seeking.” ~ =j

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X