United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Read Jeff Sessions' Utterly Illogical Defense of Tough Drug Sentences
Source:
Reason
URL Source: https://reason.com/blog/2017/06/20/ ... sessions-utterly-illogical-def
Published: Jun 20, 2017
Author: Jacob Sullum
Post Date: 2017-06-21 08:04:38 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1064
Comments: 4
Defending his new, tougher charging policy for drug offenders in The Washington Post, Attorney General Jeff Sessions once again declares that "drug trafficking is an inherently violent business." That claim has become a mantra for opponents of sentencing reform. But repeating it does not make it true. The violence associated with the distribution of currently banned drugs does not demonstrate that the business is inherently violent, any more than the violence associated with liquor distribution during alcohol prohibition showed that selling whiskey is inherently violent. The violence is a product of the prohibition policy that Sessions avidly supports, as he himself implicitly concedes in the next two sentences. "If you want to collect a drug debt," Sessions writes, "you can't, and don't, file a lawsuit in court. You collect it by the barrel of a gun." And why is it, exactly, that drug dealers cannot avail themselves of the same legal, peaceful methods of dispute resolution that today's alcohol merchants routinely use? Only because their business is illegal, as the booze business was from 1920 to 1933. In case some of his readers have taken a course in economics and might therefore be reluctant to blame black-market violence on the product being sold rather than its legal status, Sessons tries another tack. "For the approximately 52,000 Americans who died of a drug overdose in 2015," he says, "drug trafficking was a deadly business." And for the 88,000 or so Americans who die as a result of alcohol abuse each year, liquor trafficking is a deadly business. That does not mean alcohol should be banned, let alone that alcohol dealers should be subject to the severest possible criminal penalties. If drug-related deaths were Sessions' real concern, he would not support a policy that magnifies the hazards of getting high by making potency unpredictable, encouraging dangerous and unsanitary modes of consumption, and impeding harm-reducing education on subjects such as the potentially lethal risks of mixing opioids with other depressants. Before you can digest Session' second nugget of illogic, he is ready with another non sequitur. "Defenders of the status quo perpetuate the false story that federal prisons are filled with low-level, nonviolent drug offenders," he says. "The truth is less than 3 percent of federal offenders sentenced to imprisonment in 2016 were convicted of simple possession, and in most of those cases the defendants were drug dealers who accepted plea bargains in return for reduced sentences." Yet a drug dealer is not necessarily a high-level drug dealer, let alone a violent one, and even someone who participates in the distribution of large quantities may have played a minor role in the operation. The list of drug offenders who received commutations from President Obama provides many such examples. Sessons can deny the existence of low-level, nonviolent drug offenders in the federal system only by redefining those adjectives. But Sessions is just getting started. Before Attorney General Eric Holder announced a new charging policy aimed at shielding certain low-level, nonviolent drug offenders from mandatory minimum sentences, Sessions says, "the violent crime rate in the United States had fallen steadily for two decades, reaching half of what it was in 1991. Within one year after the Justice Department softened its approach to drug offenders, the trend of decreasing violent crime reversed. In 2015, the United States suffered the largest single-year increase in the overall violent crime rate since 1991." That's right: Sessions is attributing the 2015 increase in violent crime to a policy adopted in August 2013, a policy that may have resulted in shorter sentences for 500 or so federal drug offenders each year. How would that have worked? Even if we assume that every drug offender who got relief under Holder's policy was a violent predator in disguise, there were not enough of them, and they would not have been free soon enough, to have any noticeable impact on the crime rate. Perhaps Sessions means that other criminals, taking note of the fact that some federal drug offenders who previously might have gotten five years in prison were now getting two or three years instead, were emboldened to commit violent crimes. That scenario is, if anything, less plausible. According to Sessions, every federal drug offender is a violent kingpin who not only violates the government's arbitrary pharmacological taboos but poses an intolerable threat to the general public. As an old-fashioned drug warrior and tough-on-crime demagogue, the attorney general refuses to acknowledge distinctions among the wide variety of people the federal government puts behind bars every year. Without those distinctions, the criminal justice system cannot be cost-effective, and it cannot be just. Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist. The attorney general says there are no low-level, nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Of course. Do you think the federal government, the DEA, is going after dealers with two ounces of weed in their pocket and sentencing them to federal prison?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday. They are STILL lying. Only if they violated the law. No one forced anyone to sell drugs.
You're posting too many of these EEK-Jeff-Sessions-is-hiding-under-your-bed stories. Sessions isn't doing anything different on drug law enforcement and prosecutions. Congress is still preventing DOJ from using any fund to prosecute pot cases in states where it was legalized. If we see some sort of substantial amnesty of federal prisoners, it will almost certainly come from Congress, not from Trump/Sessions, as it did come from thousands of pardons issued by 0bama/Lynch including the traitor Bradley Manning. I often take exception to all these cries of "Treason!" at everything our opponents do. But Bradley Manning really was a traitor. He gave aid and comfort and extremely valuable information to all of our current credible enemies, entailing considerable risk that hundreds or thousands of American soldiers could die as a result of his actions. Not to mention all the native collaborators who were exposed (or the people falsely accused on the basis of the Manning leaks). Manning was a traitor. And he seems to be getting ready to get the Pentagon to give him a free sex change now, even if he gets a dishonorable discharge later after his appeal fails. But enough with Sessions. You're just posting Sessions clickbait stories with little real substance.
The attorney general says there are no low-level, nonviolent drug offenders in federal prison.
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#3. To: Deckard (#2)
"We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news."
#4. To: Deckard (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]