Report: Non-violent criminals getting life sentences
By Meredith Clark, MSNBC
Thousands of people convicted of non-violent crimes are serving life sentences, according to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union.
There are currently 3,278 people who have been sentenced to life without parole for crimes as small as selling less than $10 worth of marijuana and shoplifting. The report also found that it will cost nearly $2 billion to keep those inmates incarcerated until their deaths. At a time when state and local governments are desperately trying to reduce their populations of non-violent offenders in order to reduce strain on overcrowded facilities and cut spending, these prisoners are a reminder of the much harsher “tough on crime” era of the 1980s and 1990s.
As is the case throughout the country and within the federal prison system – the home of two-thirds of those prisoners serving life sentences without parole – black prisoners far outnumber white prisoners. A black person is about 20 times more likely than a white person to be sentenced to life without parole in the federal system, the study found. In Lousiana, 91.4 percent of those serving life without parole for nonviolent crimes are black.
Life sentences without the possibility of parole are given out for a variety of reasons, but the ACLU’s analysis points to a combination of mandatory minimums and three- and four-strike rules for crimes regardless of their severity that even judges and corrections officers involved in some of the cases highlighted found too harsh.
Sentencing is often more a political and social issue than a criminal justice issue. Obviously this situation serves neither the needs of the convicted criminal, nor the needs of society.
Yet there’s a large segment of society, this “forum” containing a number of such examples, that believes that there’s such a thing as “absolute” justice which, in their view, incorporates both revenge and compensation – an “eye for an eye.”
The solution to these issues is complex, but becomes more-so as the ignorant gain forums on today’s internet pipelines.
Coincidentally, I just finished a book about the Russians disputing Berlin over how the “former” Nazis and their subjects should be treated, with revenge being largely their favored response. Fortunately, for Europe and the world, both the American military and our politicians agreed on a compassionate solution. Their position was controversial, and remained so for years afterwards.
It’s a sorry thing that we’re having the same debate today with the absolutists and biblicals who are trying to divide our society between what they regard as the “winners” and the “losers.”
Your “Jesus” believed in compassion. Why do we do less?
This article is such a poorly written and investigated piece of libtard
crap. Spend the time and investigate the criminal history of each and every one of those 3278 people, and ask the judges that convicted them for their opinion. Seems like anyone can be a journalist and have an opinion these days. But sometimes those plagiarized and poorly researched opinions can do damage to society
barf-funny that you bring up plagiarism. I seem to have heard something about that recently, connected to a TeaBagger Republi-CON. So tell me, please, if you are a journalist that has an opinion, or are you stating carefully cross-referenced fact? Could you even tell the difference(I will give you a hint-if your first sentence contains the word ‘libtard’, your connection with factual reality is dubious at best.
“Your “Jesus” believed in compassion. Why do we do less?”
Good question.
I am sure the Angry Sky Mantians will handle your highlighting of their inability to comprehend the most basic teaching of their savior well.
IT’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL ! ! What we should be more concerned about is the 8th amendment being violated , “no cruel or unusual punishment” is the clause . The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled these laws are constitutional. The Supreme Court is wrong. If you think I’m wrong, you’d better rethink your opinion. People are being sentenced to prison over matters that would not have reached the level of a felony under previous sentencing law. The Supreme Court has also ruled that people in prison do not have the right to use DNA for purposes of appeals. This ruling came down about four years ago after a man in Washington wanted to pay for his own DNA test to clear himself. We should be concerned about prison overcrowding. But foremost, we should be more concerned that the Supreme Court is violating the U. S. Constitution. It gets more complicated when you consider the intent behind these Supreme Court rulings. In my opinion these people that are considered Supreme Court justices, are acting politicly, not according to law. We citizens need the Supreme Court to protect us from unconstitutional state laws. The Supreme Court has become a political tool and is now failing us citizens.
We have a justice system, whoops legal system that is politicized and corrupt. These are the results.
Too many people of African heritage grow up in horrible social and living conditions and this breeds anti-social behavior. Did I fail to mention that the great Democratic president Lyndon Johnson led the charge for the breakdown of family life not to also mention Vietnam.
“A black person is about 20 times more likely than a white person to be sentenced to life without parole in the federal system, the study found.”
Maybe this is why they populate the prisons?