If you like your drug dealing, you can keep your drug dealing.
That's the message President Obama sent with the numerous drug clemencies he granted yesterday, as detailed in this article from USA Today. And plenty more are coming:
[I]t could represent the crest of a new wave of commutations that could come in Obama's last two years in office. Last year, the Justice Department announced a new clemency initiative to try to encourage more low-level drug offenders to apply to have their sentences reduced. That resulted in a record 6,561 applications in the last fiscal year...
It's scarcely news that this Administration is as soft on drugs as it is on deserters -- that's depressing but not surprising. What's surprising is this, also from the article:
Obama wrote each of the 22 Tuesday, saying they had demonstrated the potential to turn their lives around...."Now it is up to you to make the most of this opportunity. It will not be easy, and you will encounter many who doubt people with criminal records can change," Obama wrote. "I believe in your ability to prove the doubters wrong."
Question: Did Obama ever write a warm, personal note to the soldiers who risked life and limb trying to recover Bowe Bergdahl?
One more thing. All this stuff we heard about focusing clemency on "low level pot users" was, predictably, a pack of lies. As the story notes:
Of the 22 commutations granted Tuesday, 17 were for possession or trafficking in cocaine. The others were for methamphetamine, heroin and marijuana. One was also convicted of a gun charge in addition to cocaine possession.
So what we're dealing with here is not the well-worn horror story of some high school kid who gets sent away forever for smoking a joint. That was just the front man. (Actually, it was just a fable; in federal court, essentially no one gets a prison sentence for smoking a joint).
Instead, what we're getting is a what-me-worry attitude toward the most dangerous and frightening drugs. And if a gun or two is thrown in for good measure, hey, look, give peace a chance.
This was where it was always headed. With a drug offense recidivism rate of 77%, the idea that these quick-buck convicts will now become honest, productive citizens is a fantasy. But it's a fantasy that will get plenty of kudos from Obama's fat constituency in the pro-criminal crowd, so it's the fantasy we're going to hear the most about.
Are you inclined to predict that 15 or more of these 22 grant clemency are likely to recidivate? How many would you predict will?
I will say it is likely that some of these 22 will get in trouble again, but I am hopeful the recidivism rate is MUCH lower than 77% as a result of the clemency grants for this population. If this proves true, Bill --- i.e., if the recidivism rate in this group say ends up at 25% --- will you credit Prez Obama for cutting recidivism rates in one population of offenders by 200%?
As you can perhaps tell, I am playing with data here. But I do mean to ask the serious question in light of your 77% statistic: what rate of recidivism would you consider a "success" for the coming "flood" of prisoners receiving clemency?
Doug --
"I am hopeful the recidivism rate is MUCH lower than 77% as a result of the clemency grants for this population."
Anyone not on Pluto would hope for a lower recidivism rate than 77%. But 77% is what it is -- a fact the sentencing reform crowd likes to sweep under the rug.
"I do mean to ask the serious question in light of your 77% statistic: what rate of recidivism would you consider a 'success'..."
How did it get to be "my" statistic? It was announced by Eric Holder's Justice Department after a huge, multi-year study.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rprts05p0510pr.cfm
As to predictions: In order for a person to make a prediction on a sample size of 22, he would have to be somewhere well beyond Pluto.
Nor, if a point be made of it, do predictions count. Facts count. The fact is that the huge majority of drug traffickers get back in business (along with the huge majority of other criminals).
You are right that many criminals RELEASED FROM STATE PRISONS get back in the business of crime according to BJS data. And that statistic is one of many reasons I fear that a state prison term may be criminogenic --- i.e., increases the likelihood of future crime by an individual --- and this one of many reasons I am pleased many states are exploring alternatives to incarceration for first offenders and lower-level drug offenders.
But all that data tells us little about federal offenders, especially those Prez Obama has granted clemency. I believe you have often urged Prez clemency as the means to deal with problematic federal cases, like Scooter Libby and Weldon Angelos. But now that Prez Obama has handled 22 cases this way, you lament that this Administration is "soft on drugs." In other words, I fear, you do not really want this clemency power use to help anyone except those who you advocate being helped like Scooter Libby.
Doug --
1. Do you really think that the data tell us only about state inmates??? That's odd, because a whole big bunch of state inmates are incarcerated for drug and firearm offenses, just as is true in federal jurisdiction.
2. When a massive incarceration increase has coincided with a massive crime decrease, the idea that incarceration PRODUCES crime is so far beyond common sense that it's not even possible for me to describe.
3. I think clemency should be used in very exceptional cases (not "problematic" ones, the word you put in my mouth). Libby and Angelos were very exceptional.
And yes, the Administration is soft on drugs (although not as soft as it is on mullahs and deserters).
1. The data may be similar for state and federal prisoners, but the report on crack offenders in the federal system showed about a 33% recidivism rate. That strikes me as the more relevant number in the context of commutation of federal drug offenders. Do you disagree?
2. Incarceration rates began to increase around 1970 but crime continued to increase until 1991, so both the crime data and the recidivism data support the idea that prison is criminogenic. More critically, the lead-crime data is a better explanatory variable that any other, and I think we both agree that a combination of factors are most likely the full story. Still, when 3/4 of state prisoners are arrested after release, it is hard to make a good case that prison reduces, rather than perhaps just delays it a bit, for this population.
3. In a system that imposes roughly 80,000 prison sentences each year, how many do you think are "very exceptional"? If only 1 single sentence out of every 1000 were "very exceptional," that would still call for about 80 commutations a year. Even if only 1 in every 5,000 were "very exceptional," we should get 16 clemencies each year.
Forgetting about Clinton's suspect out-the-door clemencies his last day in office, do you know the last year in which a Prez granted more than a dozen commutations in a single year? That year was 1972, when Prez Nixon granted 18 commutations. In other words, we have gone roughly 40 years in which presidents have failed to grant clemencies in even .02% of cases. Prez Obama arguably could (and I think should) grant hundreds of clemencies to just deal with "very exceptional" cases that have been ignored, in part because you have not spent as much time as I think you should looking for Libby-like folks.
I think the answer is whether these sentences, when looked at from the standpoint of what they did (and what they've done in prison) make sense from a justice standpoint.
I hope these people go on to live productive lives.
Doug, do you have any information on how Clarence Aaron is currently doing? Or the female drug felon to whom GWB granted clemency?
My guess is that none of the 22 will commit a serious crime in the future. I hope I am right.
While I'm not a fan of the administration's legal theory, or their inconsistent application of the law on this topic, I'm not seeing a problem here. Under no analysis can we say our drug policy has actually succeeded, and the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines were a horrible idea that led to actually dangerous people being let out of prison due to overcrowding. Cost overruns have led to some states having to sacrifice officer's pensions in order to stay afloat.
I think we're past due for a paradigm shift on the subject of "drugs."