I remain very interested, Bill, in your views about whether federal prosecutors and judge made a big mistake --- as I think they did --- when they "turn[ed] away from prison as the answer" to David Petraeus' seemingly MAJOR national security crime. Do you at all fear that your past effective advocacy urging Prez Bush to turn away from prison as the answer to Scooter Libby's somewhat similar offenses perhaps invited Petraeus to believe the rules do not apply to people like him?

Doug --

I have explained a number of criteria I will use from now on in deciding whether to reply to comments. See http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2015/04/a-comment-on-comments.html#more

Your comment here violates at least three of those standards: It attempts to hijack the thread to a different topic, implies that I'm obligated to respond, and asks repeat questions.

Because you might not have seen the standards at the time you wrote this, I will answer. But I hope you will know that those standards will apply prospectively. If you want engagement -- which is entirely up to you -- some guideposts are going to govern from now on.

1. This thread is about a "routine" crime, albeit one that involves violence. Petraeus's crime was neither routine nor violent. Indeed, it was very, very unusual, and properly qualifies for a guideline departure under any conceivable criteria.

2. "Do you at all fear that your past effective advocacy urging Prez Bush to turn away from prison as the answer to Scooter Libby's somewhat similar offenses perhaps invited Petraeus to believe the rules do not apply to people like him?"

No I do not. That is because, to start with, I think the chances are infinitesimal that Gen. Petraeus has read a single word I have written.

3. The apparently limitless hypocrisy of the sentencing "reform" side is breathtaking. For years, I have heard from them that prison is NOT where we should be spending our resources on non-violent, first-time offenders, particularly where their recidivism chances are essentially zero. That description fits both Petraeus and Libby to a tee.

Indeed, the hypocrisy is particularly amazing in Petraeus's case, given the numerous posts you have put up suggesting especially lenient treatment -- indeed, different courts altogether -- for military veterans.

So why the sudden change? Ideology and politics, I strongly suspect. Both men are closely identified with President Bush's strategy to pull it out in Iraq.

But for however that may be, this thread is now going to be returned to its subject.

1. Bill, I fret that you seem disinterested in explaining the implications of your assertions/arguments about the need for incarceration in many minor cases either as a matter of "justice" or in service to public safety.

In this post and in other comments about why jail is needed as a punishment for even "routine" low-level crimes, you have asserted that a jail term has been "earned" or is needed avoid "inviting more" of that kind of crime. In so doing, you are quick to be critical of the ever-growing number of advocates on both sides of the aisle urging reforms that seek to reduce incarceration rates and levels for non-violent offenders.

But while you persistently criticize those advocating for incarceration alternatives, you seem to advocate for incarceration alternatives for a few defendants you respect, and I am trying to understand exactly what makes these defendants different so that you, in rare cases, apparently embrace a position you usually criticize strongly. Is it because you actually do see merit in the general assertions "that prison is NOT where we should be spending our resources on non-violent, first-time offenders, particularly where their recidivism chances are essentially zero," or is it for some other reason. That is all I am trying to better understand in this context and others.

I am sorry if you view my continued effort to better understand the implications of your various claims about incarceration policies and practices as an "attempts to hijack the thread to a different topic," and/or imply that you are obligated to respond or to ask repeat questions. But since you gave up the dialogue on my blog, I struggle to find an effective space to better understand your important and informed perspective on various questions of federal sentencing law and policy that interest me and inform my research and teaching.

You always can and should ignore anything I write here and you should feel free to ask me no longer to comment at all and I will honor such a request. But, in whatever ways possible, I will continue to want to know more about your views and those of all others who see sentencing law and policy from different perspectives than I do; I know I always have a lot more to learn, and I find learn best by writing out my thoughts and trying to (respectfully) probe and understand the thoughts of others.

I sincerely apologize if I have aggravated you with my inquiries and questions and I will honor any request that I stop commenting. Unfortunately, I am not sure I know any other way than through hard questions to make progress on difficult and challenging topics --- this is the Socratic Method that, I personally feel, serves law students and law professors well. I may just have to conclude the kinds of questions I ask are not welcome in this forum as a response to your posts.