<< Killing Police in Retaliation for Racism Is Justifiable! | Main | Clemency Overreach Spawns Sentencing Reform Distrust >>


Question: When Does Gun Control Not Matter?

| 0 Comments
Answer:  When Barack Obama is handing out clemency to drug felons.  If they were packin' heat on the street corner, well, look, boys will be boys.  

The important thing is to shimmy down the prison population.  If the federal recidivism rate is half (49.3%, exactly), and crime across America is skyrocketing, please, get over it.  We need to "rebuild our communities"  --  with drug pushers.

Heather MacDonald lays it out in her telling piece in the National Review.

President Barack Obama commuted the sentences of 214 federal prisoners yesterday, part of his ongoing crusade against a criminal-justice system he regularly declares racist and draconian. The White House trumpeted the fact that this was the largest one-day grant of clemency since 1900....

Many of the commuttees possessed stolen firearms or firearms with their serial numbers obliterated. Some were in violation of National Firearms Registration, which can mean possession of a federally prohibited weapon, such as a machine gun, silencer, or sawed-off shotgun. We don't know how many guns the offenders actually had; a commuttee during a previous batch of commutations had 40. 

Nor does the Justice Department's press release disclose the actual incidence of firearm possession by these federal convicts. Gun possession can be used to increase a federal sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines without a prosecutor's actually bringing a formal charge. A gun charge can also be plea-bargained away. Many advocates of criminal-justice reform believe in maximum gun control, yet White House press releases on the president's commutations have been silent on the widespread incidence of illegal gun possession.


It doesn't get any better:

Many advocates of criminal-justice reform believe in maximum gun control, yet the White House press releases on the president's commutations have been silent on the widespread incidence of illegal gun possession. It would seem that once someone becomes a member of the oppressed prisoner class, the gun issue becomes irrelevant.

The Justice Department press release also does not reveal the offenders' criminal history, history of violence, ties to drug cartels, or the sentencing judge's recommendation. Written requests to the president from federal attorneys to make the process more transparent have gone unanswered. 

Now let's say that you are an elderly widow in Harlem and you want to go out to buy some tea. There is a drug dealer on the corner trafficking cocaine. He has a pistol in his waistband. Do you feel safe? Does it reassure you that the dealer is not actually shooting people at the moment? Or is his very presence there part of an implicit reign of violence that the drug trade exerts over your life, eroding your sense of security?

The latter is the case, to judge from the routine pleas to the police from law-abiding inner-city residents. These good people beg their local commanders to get the dealers off the corner once and for all; they would scoff at the distinction between violent and nonviolent drug traffickers. They understand that the drug trade is underwritten by the implicit threat of violence.

We have been told endlessly by President Obama and the rest of the justice-reform movement that prisons are chock-full of harmless sad sacks whose only offense is getting caught with a little weed. It should have been easy, therefore, to come up with thousands of pacific targets for commutation or pardon. That so many of recipients of Obama's clemency were armed and dangerous shows how distorted the dominant narrative about "mass incarceration" is.

I'll add only one thought. The high recidivism rate for federal offenses is actually understated.  The single largest segment of the federal prison population consists of drug dealers.  Not surprisingly, they represent the great majority of those just given commutations.  Almost all crime is under-reported, and, with the possible exception of rape, drug deals are the most under-reported  of all.  People who become dependent on drugs, or addicted, are not about to turn in their supplier.

What this means is that more than half, and very likely many more than half, of the commuttees will re-offend, probably in the first two years (when re-offense rates are at their peak).

Is there any mention of this in the President's statement?

Is there any commitment, by the White House or DOJ, to keep the public informed about future crimes committed by these people?

I suppose it's impolite of me to ask.  This is, after all, the most transparent administration in history.




Leave a comment

Monthly Archives