Biden's Latest Surrender On Public Safety Puts Most Vulnerable At Risk

1. 83

   Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

   Be aware of all that may be slipping through the cracks... Or live with the consequences. 
   
   
   Puppet Biden is once again moving away from the middle and common sense law enforcement policies.  New policies from the DOJ on charging, pleas and sentencing in cases involving drugs are making it more dangerous to live in America.
   
   'Merrick Garland will have long departed the DOJ by the time the real-life consequences of his catastrophic policies begin to show up in the crime data. It will be up to the states, that he has so little regard for, to clean up his huge mess.
   
   It’s hard to think of anything new and clever to say about how bad the Biden administration is on public safety issues, but it must be said.
   
   On December 16, 2022, Merrick Garland of the Biden Justice Department issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors entitled, "Additional Department Policies Regarding Charging, Pleas, and Sentencing in Drug Cases."
   
   In the memo, Garland directs his line attorneys across the country to try to avoid charging offenders with crimes that carry mandatory minimums—especially when the underlying crimes are drug crimes. His reasoning? "The perceived and actual racial disparities in the criminal justice system."
   
   This reckless rhetoric, pushed by Obama and Biden, has made our country a far more dangerous place to live.
   
   From 2003 to 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice maintained a policy that federal prosecutors "must charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense or offenses that are supported by the facts of the case." But in May of 2010, Eric Holder (Obama appointee) —our second most radical U.S. Attorney General—changed that policy, explaining that "equal justice depends on individualized justice" and that prosecutors must undergo an "individualized assessment" of the defendant before pursuing the most serious provable offense.
   
   In 2017, Jeff Sessions sensibly returned the Department to the Ashcroft-era policy.
   
   Discarding 35 years of determinate sentencing under the federal guidelines, Merrick Garland has now directed the entire federal prosecutorial ranks to embrace what Dr. Thomas Sowell called the "disparate impact racket."
   
   The worst part of it is, those whom Obama and Biden claim to be looking out for have paid the heaviest price when it comes to their safety. As Vice President Kamala Harris recently observed, "black people are 13% of America’s population, but make up 62% of America’s homicide victims." A report by the National Center for Victim Research found that "the overall risk of violent victimization is highest among persons who are younger, male, black, living in the poorest households, and living in urban areas."
   
   And make no mistake, drug crime is violent crime.
   
   Even in Alabama, fentanyl and other opioids are ranked as the second-greatest contributor to violent crime and property crime—and they’re not even being produced here. According to Alabama’s most recent drug-threat assessment, Black drug-trafficking organizations are primarily responsible for the wholesale and retail distribution of fentanyl here, while White drug-trafficking organizations play an equal role in transporting it throughout our state.
   
   Selective application of mandatory minimums based on skin color is simply untenable when the goal is to stop the loss of life. Last fall, a 16-year-old male died of a fentanyl overdose at Selma High School—should the race of the dealer really be considered when it comes to the punishment for that tragedy?
   
   Alabama’s federal prosecutors, just like its state and local prosecutors, know what is going on in their communities. They must have the autonomy, along with their task force officers and agents, to manage their cases as they see fit. Undermining the work of federal law enforcement—tasked with removing predatory and repeat offenders from our communities—only emboldens the criminal element.
   
   The bad guys know what lands you in the federal penitentiary and exactly how much time you’ll serve, and that certainty is both an effective deterrent and a reason to cooperate. The dilution of that certainty also undermines the cooperative partnerships between federal, state, and local law enforcement, as so often, states look to federal prosecutors to help ensure that someone is taken off the streets for a significant period and sent far away from home. " Source  https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-l … afety-risk
   Another source --- Garlands  Complete Memorandum
   https://www.justice.gov/media/1265321/dl?inline
   
   My biggest question --- With the increase of drugs pouring in with our seemingly open borders, and cartels making cash hand over fist.  --- Is it wise to telegraph to those that readily break our drug laws they might just receive a "get out of jail free card"?
   
   Thoughts---

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Sharlee, you know that I don't give a hoot about anything coming from Fox, how about the rest of the story?
      
      Qhttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/16/us/politics/justice-dept-crack-cocaine.html

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         I find Fox has many fewer retractions than NYTs as well as they report all the news.  The NYT article you provided concentrated on Cocaine arrests. The Garland Memorandums' new orders refer to crimes that involve breaking multiple drug laws.  The NYT just did not offer the full picture of Garland's new protocols he sent out to Federal prosecutors.
         You may want to have a look at the Memorandum.
         
         To be honest, I don't find it all bad... But in my view could pose problems if we have those who break laws that pertain to drugs, and may truely become emboldened.
         
         I think this is an interesting topic, and with all the other news, it may have slipt through the cracks. As much does nowadays.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I wonder how much money biden will get for this current stupidity. biden doesn't do anything if it don't add another dime in his pocket.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               There is enough smoke to certainly think Biden plays for pay. Lots of slime with his every footstep. He leaves a 50-year trail.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  KC McGeeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  100% agree.

                  replyreport
         2. 81

            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            With consideration of the exceptions below, I don't believe that there is a problem allowing a judge and jury discretion in imposing punishment. As the fact that possession of crack cocaine has been treated more harshly than possession of the powder variety. There is nothing wrong in addressing disparities in how the law is enforced when we are speaking about fundamentally the same substance in a different form.
            ----------
            The defendant's relevant conduct does not involve: the use of violence, the direction to another to use violence, the credible threat o f violence, the possession o f a weapon, the trafficking of drugs to or with minors, or the death or serious bodily injury of any person; The defendant does not have a significant managerial role in the trafficking o f significant quantities of drugs;
            The defendant does not have significant ties to a large-scale criminal organization or cartel, or to a violent gang; and
            The defendant does not have a significant history ofcriminal activity that involved the use or threat of violence, personal involvement on multiple occasions in the distribution of significant quantities of illegal drugs, or possession of illegal firearms.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Street suppliers are the last link that puts the drugs in the hands of the user. They certainly never come in contact with the organization's top people.
               
               So, it makes sense to leave them on the streets, unpunished.   Let's not mess up supply and demand...   
               
               You might want to realize they carry a small amount to avoid arrest or have underage kids make the drop.   
               
               Cut off the arms you sooner or later starve the head.
               
               Garland is ultimately making it easy for cartels, as Biden has with his open border.
               
               I can't imagine what the cartels are thinking between their giggles. Our Government at the moment looks so laughable, and just a hot mess.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Nobody said that street suppliers should not be punished. But if they do not meet any of the exceptions I stated earlier and provided in the legislation, draconian sentencing can and should be avoided.

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     I was trying to point out, giving a lower level of persons breaking our drug laws can certainly condone what they are doing for the "big guys".
                     
                     It almost seems many feel we should continue turning away from solving the drug problems that are occurring now more frequently in our society. 
                     
                     Is this sensible in any respect? Make it all much easier to bring drugs in just walking into our country, don't arrest their drug dealers. Can't you see the bigger picture here?

                     replyreport
                  2. 77

                     wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     A few years behind bars (that "minimum sentencing" in the OP) to help protect our children is not "Draconian sentencing".  "Draconian" might be a decade for a first offense, or life.  Perhaps the death penalty for having a few pounds of crack.
                     
                     This is one of the problems with liberal "justice"; criminals go free or nearly free rather than being punished.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        The problem is they don't appear, to recognize the roots of problems, and how common sense can benefit in solving problems. Looking past the drug problems that are clearly getting much worse is just unacceptable.
                        
                        Their cartels are murdering our young and leaving nothing but sorrow.
                        They need to be slowed down and stopped, and no better way than cut off the person delivering their poison.  Instead of a free card out of jail --- the sentences should be made longer.
                        
                        I can tell you there is nothing sadder than being present when parents are delivering the message their child is dead from an overdose. And having them stand at the side of a gurney in an ER to ID their child or loved one.
                        
                        Yes, the criminal that served up the drugs is the ones that are alive and well... IT's the loved ones that are ultimately punished.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           What about drug abuse prevention and rehab? We've basically gutted that in this country over the decades. You know we'd rather blame the victims of drug abuse than offer real solutions. Obviously if we reduce the demand then supply will decrease. The root of the problem is that people in our country become addicted for various reasons and there isn't a whole lot of affordable help out there.

                           replyreport
                           1. 83

                              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, we have gutted many drug prevention and rehab programs. It would seem those on drugs have been accepted as part of our culture. We can look past them.
                              
                              My self, I could not bring myself to blame the addict. They were all at one time clean slates. All individuals, all with reasons turned to drugs. Some  just falling to peer pressure, and becoming dependent on drugs.
                              
                              If we work at stopping the drugs coming into the country we could work on the rest. And we could easily stop that follow if we wanted to. We could fight a just war, right at that southren border.
                              
                              We are simply spinning out of control, and are not solving problems but making more.

                              replyreport
            2. 77

               wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               If the only thing they do is feed our children deadly drugs, without even buying a coffin, then they should get off free?
               
               No.  That's all, just NO.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  See my comment to Sharlee....

                  replyreport
2. 77

   wildernessposted 2 years ago

   Are you surprised?  Biden has repeatedly ignored laws he didn't like, refusing to enforce them or allow our DOJ to do so.
   
   He has repeatedly carried out racist actions, ignoring ethics and the law.
   
   It cannot be a surprise that his minions do the same, using racism as an excuse to allow criminals to go free.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Racism as in virtually every aspect of American life, certainly finds itself in the criminal justice system. That includes law enforcement, disparate sentencing and the like, I am more than aware of this and certainly will not ignore it.
      
      The law  is to apply equally to everyone or it subject to challenge and/or change.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Who challenged Biden on his refusal to consider whites or males for the new job at SCOTUS?  Hardly "equal opportunity", now was it?
         
         When we have overt racism exhibited from the highest office in the land, racism that is applauded, our chances of creating "equal opportunity" for all is nil.  So is removing racism from our justice system.

         replyreport