The AP reports that President Obama today met with the family of Alton Sterling, a black man shot last month by Baton Rouge police. The story mentions (in one sentence) that he also met with the families of the three policemen ambushed in "response" to that killing.
Because I do not adequately know the circumstances of the Sterling shooting, I'm not going to comment on the prudence of the President's meeting with his relatives. The nearly simultaneous meeting with the officers' families implies a moral equivalence of which I am skeptical, but, again, not in a position to say much more than that.
I do have a question, however: Where is Obama's meeting with the families of Erveena Hammonds and her daughters, aged seven and ten? They were knifed to death in January by Wendell Callahan, who had been in federal prison but was released early under the Fair Sentencing Act, gushingly supported and signed by Mr. Obama on August 3, 2010. But for Callahan's early release under that bill, Ms. Hammonds and her little girls would be alive today.
Their murder scene was so gruesome that responding police had to be given counseling afterward. Apart from the FSA, Callahan's windfall early release was facilitated by the false representation from Obama's US Attorney's Office in Columbus, Ohio that Callahan did not present a danger to the community.
As we have seen before, Mr. Obama is happy to blame local police, but takes not a shred of responsibility for grotesque child murders his Presidential signature, and the lies from his Justice Department, facilitated.
Bill, do you know if any members of the (nearly unanimous) Congress which passed the FSA have visited with the the families of Erveena Hammonds?
Perhaps Congress deserves the "popularity" it has -- although in fairness, it should be observed that Congress was, in 2010, led by the President's party.
Still, for however that may be, the head of the federal executive branch has no share of responsibility for the operation of the Baton Rouge police, but does have a share of responsibility for the operation of legislation he eagerly supports and signs.
He is also in part responsible for the flagrant fabrication by defense counsel, supported by his USAO, that Hammonds did not present a danger to the community.
So, with more responsibility and a worse outcome (three corpses) in the Callahan case, the President has no consolation to give; but with less (actually, no) responsibility and a "better" outcome (one corpse) in the Sterling case, the President takes the trouble to give consolation.
I think you're politically savvy enough by a goodly measure to know what's going on here: Callahan's three victims are inconvenient to the sentencing reduction agenda, so they count for zip and get flushed down the memory hole, while Sterling is plenty convenient to the Police Stink agenda, so he gets the President's "compassion."
Note the non-defense defense thrown up by Doug. Of course, Bill is spot on in his criticism, and, of course, Doug can't dispute that, so he'll try to nibble around the edges.
Of course, Doug won't revisit the lame defense of the release of Callahan. When confronted with the fact that Callahan had a violent past (and therefore should not have been released), Doug couldn't defend the decision to release him, which, of course really cannot be attributable to Congress,
Because the public will not buy an important policy without knowing its cost, the Callahan episode and its reverberations tell much of the tale of our debate.
It really boils down to two questions. First, can Doug and his allies in the sentencing reduction movement assure us that there will be no more Callahans?
Obviously, being honest people, they cannot. Indeed, they know that the next Callahan-like episode, or worse, could be in tomorrow's paper.
This leads to the next, and terminal, question. Since we can't assure zero Callahan-type episodes in a regime of shorter sentences and early release, HOW MANY such episodes -- that is, how many dead mothers and children -- are worth the candle?
Until we hear a number -- not an essay, a number -- we are left with this: They want us to buy a sentencing reductions bill knowing that there will BE a price, but never telling us what it is.
Down to its essentials, is has nothing to do with ideology. It's just common sense. No sane person is going to by a big package of legal changes (or a big package of anything) without knowing the price.
The other side's inability and/or refusal to state the price is the end of the game. If someone wanted to sell you a house but would never tell you a dollar amount on settlement day or, indeed, anything very specific, you'd walk. As would anyone.
Wendell Callahan gave us a sneak peak at the price of the broad-based sentencing reduction, but, in order to make a change that big, we need way, way more than a peak.
Until we get a sober, plausible, realistic price backed up by the cold hard facts of recidivism statistics, we would have to be nuts to buy the package.
That is the reason the reformers, with all their Koch and Soros money, all their connections in the Administration from Obama to Jarrett to Sally Yates, and all their flush interest groups from FAMM to the ACLU to the Sentencing Project to the Brennan Center -- with all that they haven't won. When you can't/won't tell the public the price of what you propose, you won't be making the sale no matter how slick or seductive the packaging may be. And what with murder and heroin deaths going through the roof, reform packaging -- such as it ever was -- gets more tattered every day.
Obviously if Callahan had been in prison he could not have committed the murders (at the time he did, anyway). As I understand Bill's argument, early release or shorter sentences are bad because people who are released early sometimes commit other crimes.
But people who serve their full sentences commit other crimes as well. If we take Bill's argument to its logical extreme, shouldn't we sentence everyone to LWOP, so there's no chance of future offenses? If not, how long should sentences be?
As I understand it, Callahan served about 8 years for selling crack. That sentence, Bill would argue, was too short because Callahan committed these gruesome murders when he was released. But that begs the question - how long should a sentence for selling crack be? 15 years? 25 years? LWOP? If it's anything less than LWOP, and someone is released and commits a new crime, the sentence was too short, right?
My point is, it's easy to say in hindsight that a reoffender's sentence was too short. But in the real world, how long should sentences be without knowing ahead of time who will reoffend and who won't? Every petty thief is a potential murderer. How long should the sentence be for petty theft to avoid a future murder?
Also, I realize you're making a point by asking why Obama didn't meet the victims' family, but he regularly meets with crime victims' families, like the families of the Dallas police officers and the San Bernardino victims. Are you suggesting that the president should meet with the families of every crime victim?
- Victor
The overarching point is that the public was misled into thinking that those eligible for early release had been screened and posed no threat to the community. Callahan had numerous instances of violence in his history and should not have been labeled a "non-violent offender".
federalist, I have no desire or interest in "defending" whom Prez Obama decides to meet with or not meet with. I was just curious, given that Bill's post essentially blames the FSA for Callahan's release, whether he knows if anyone responsible for the FSA has taken time to visit with the families of Erveena Hammonds. Again, this is not meant as a defense of anyone, but rather an inquiry of Bill whether he thinks those connected with the FSA take a similar view that the FSA (rather than just Callahan himself) shares "responsibility for grotesque child murders" committed by Callahan.
That all said, I would defend the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act --- which I think has been a beneficial piece of legislation producing more positive outcomes than negative ones. Of course, for the families of Erveena Hammonds, other people and society at large getting various benefits from the FSA will surely provide them little comfort.
As I have tried to explain in other settings, the reason why Callahan was in prison for a crack offense (and thus benefited from the FSA) rather than in prison for his "numerous instances of violence in his history" is itself a story of government failure that merits considerably more attention. The Washington Post has been lately doing a good series on some violent offenders getting sentenced too leniently, and the backstory is that sometimes our tendency to sentence true nonviolent offenders too harshly is part of the problem.
Ah, the classic "who me" when called out.
"I was just curious, given that Bill's post essentially blames the FSA for Callahan's release, whether he knows if anyone responsible for the FSA has taken time to visit with the families of Erveena Hammonds."
Oh you were just curious? Whatever.
Correct me if I am wrong--but under FSA wasn't there supposed to be an inquiry into dangerousness? Assuming that's the case, then how do individual members of Congress have responsibility for the poor execution? The requirement of an inquiry into dangerousness, of course, obviates your weak attempt to suggest that a lenient state court system was to blame---maybe it has blame, but the fact is that had the Obama Administration done its job, the triple murder wouldn't have happened. All your evasions and qualifications and faux earnest attempts to call out misplaced lenience.
federalist, my main point is that if we want to blame government folks for Callahan's murders, there is plenty of blame to go around. (And, worth noting here is the eagerness of you and Bill and others to blame government actors for Callahan's crimes rather than Callahan, which strikes me as a variation on the refrain from folks on the left who attribute crimes in certain neighbors to the failure of government to properly invest in those neighborhoods.)
And part of the problem that I want to make sure does not get lost in these Callahan discussions (and one which you often note) is our modern tendency to put so many people in prison for so long, which in turn necessarily makes us less effective at screening people for dangerousness --- both at initial sentencing and when made eligible for release. The mantra from Bill and others for decades that any and everyone involved in drug dealing is dangerous --- which is being proven patently false by marijuana reform developments and which Bill himself knows to be at best a form of hyperbole --- leads to a felt need for remedial legislation like the FSA and for other federal drug guideline reforms. In turn, these sensible (and practically needed) remedial sentencing efforts produce a gut of individuals (nealy 75,000 in the federal system) who need to be quickly screened for dangerousness. The fact that this screening "blew it" in the Callahan case should be understood and assessed within this larger context.
Doug --
"I was just curious, given that Bill's post essentially blames the FSA for Callahan's release, whether he knows if anyone responsible for the FSA has taken time to visit with the families of Erveena Hammonds."
Since Callahan was released expressly under the FSA, and otherwise would still be incarcerated, how could I blame anything OTHER than the FSA for his release?
I don't understand.
Doug --
You write, "worth noting here is the eagerness of you and Bill and others to blame government actors for Callahan's crimes rather than Callahan..."
At no point have I blamed government actors RATHER THAN Callahan. Contrary to the false ideology of defense lawyering, a sane adult is responsible for his own actions and should bear that responsibility including, in this case, the death penalty for Callahan,
You do agree with the DP for his multiple, gruesome child murders, right?
I hope you'll give a direct answer here.
That said, those in the government who helped enact the FSA bear a portion of blame, you bet, because, but for the FSA, Callahan would still be in prison and Ms. Hammonds and her children still alive. It is logically impossible to deny that the FSA helped facilitate the murders.
You continue, "And part of the problem that I want to make sure does not get lost in these Callahan discussions (and one which you often note) is our modern tendency to put so many people in prison for so long, which in turn necessarily makes us less effective at screening people for dangerousness --- both at initial sentencing and when made eligible for release."
Where is the actual, specific evidence that greater use of incarceration makes us less able to evaluate people for dangerousness? When did this get to be a zero-sum game?
If I'm not mistaken, reform advocates assure us that adopting their program will not endanger the public PRECISELY BECAUSE, with modern advances in understanding (risk assessment and others), we are enabled to be more intelligently discriminating.
But it's a moot point anyway with respect to Callahan. As federalist points out (and you wisely do not dispute), there was plenty of evidence, known to both Callahan's lawyer and the government, that he was dangerous. Plenty.
The problem was not lack of knowledge. The problem, which you have yet to address, was lack of honesty and caring. The defense lawyer was flat-out dishonest in representing that his client was not a danger to the community. Obama's USAO was either dishonest or uncaring or both in going along with it.
This was preventable child murder, a moral abomination. But rather than condemn and seek to rectify the things that made it possible (the FSA, and defense bar and DOJ lying), you continue eagerly to support the FSA. Indeed, you support the far more sweeping SRCA, which would multiply the opportunities for exactly the factual and moral blunders that put Callahan back on the street before he would have been under his prior, lawful sentence.
Thus I ask again: Knowing that this and (possibly worse) blunders will occur again in unknown numbers, resulting in harm or death to innocent and defenseless people, how many of such errors should we tolerate in order to give breaks to felony-level hard drug dealers?
In other words, what's the price, the whole price, of the SRCA package?
Or do you expect the country to buy the package without knowing the price? Is that what rational people do?
Douglas stated:"And part of the problem that I want to make sure does not get lost in these Callahan discussions (and one which you often note) is our modern tendency to put so many people in prison for so long, which in turn necessarily makes us less effective at screening people for dangerousness --- both at initial sentencing and when made eligible for release."
Two points.
First, what is your evidence, no proof (after all, you did make a declarative statement), that "too many people in prison" made screening "less effective" rather than plain old incompetence or false compassion for the felons? Please, no long-winded stem-winding lawyerly filibuster needed, just the proof.
Second, you obliterate much of your own argument. You are admitting that our government is incapable of fully vetting these people for release. Although you can still make the argument that we should not incarcerate people at the same levels in the future, the only reasonable and compassionate (to society) solution for those already incarcerated is to hold them as long as possible. After all, your own words indicate that we cannot effectively tell who will or will not be the next Callahan.
You ARE against releasing murderous thugs, right?
Doug, you're a slippery one. First note how you started with the idea that the feds really weren't to blame for Callahan because, you know, the state was lenient. Now it's you guys aren't real conservatives because you don't blame Callahan and there's plenty of blame to go around.
Of course Callahan is to blame, and of course, the state sentence appears to have been too lenient---but that's not what we are talking about--we are talking about a federal sentence that was reduced that should not have been (finally, you appear to concede that it was a mistake, albeit caused by an overincarceration problem). In other words, Obama's DoJ did this with the help of the courts.
This whole exercise is the non-defense defense. It's patently obvious that Callahan NEVER should have been let out early given his violent history. So, instead of forthrightly admitting that, you nibble at the edges with nonsense designed to shift the focus from the issue. Unfortunately, you're not nimble enough to do this without stepping in it, as Tarls and Bill show. This nonsense may work on law students, but not here.
federalist --
We'll see, I guess, if Doug is serious about thinking that Callahan is to blame when he tells us whether he is for or against the DP in Callahan's case. Multiple child murder by a previously convicted felon out of sheer hate is the worst of the worst by any standard. A person who will not support the DP for Callahan is an abolitionist no matter what they might claim.
My prediction, however, is that Doug will not unequivocally support the DP for Callahan.
The more important question even than that, however, is whether he'll tell us the full price of the SRCA. We know that there is a huge recidivism rate for federal drug felons, and we know that they use violence to a far, far greater extent than normal people. We thus also know that neither Doug nor anyone can promise no more Callahans -- i.e., people who kill the defenseless when they otherwise would have been incarcerated.
If sentencing reduction backers will not tell us the full cost of their proposals, the country shouldn't buy them.
No sane person buys an important change in the law, or anything else important, without knowing its price. It just makes no sense.
Been lecturing and teaching, so will not have a chance to respond fully until late tonight, but rest assured I will respond.
What I'm hoping for is not an elaborate response. There are just two fulcrum questions here, and both admit of very short answers.
The first is whether sentencing reformers can promise no more Callahans. The answer is no, nor do they attempt to.
The second is, since there is the prospect of more Callahans, how many more should the country accept as the price of a regime of early release?
Just giving a number will answer that question.
P.S. If you'd care to give direct answers to the other questions I posed, of course I would welcome that as well, including particularly whether you unequivocally support the death penalty for Callahan, who is, by any sane definition, in the worst-of-the-worst.
No sure I can swifty respond to all the questions and debunk inaccurate efforts to attribute to me things I did not say, but I will try:
1. I would support state and/or federal prosecutors seeking the DP for Callahan, in part because a discretionary punishment delivered by juries after deliberation as a voice of the community. (For the record, the only substantive punishment I generally opposed as a categorical matter is LWOP: if we think an offender is too dangerous and/or too blameworthy to ever be free again, execution seems a more sensible punishment than everlasting caging. And, FWIW, I am also generally against most mandatory punishments because they tend to be crude in operation and place excessive sentencing power in the hands of prosecutors.) For taxpaying reasons, I also wish (as a policy matter) capital punishment was an exclusively federal process because the feds seem to operate this punishment more efficiently and effectively than the states, and at a relatively lower cost.
2. As you note, Bill, nobody can promise no more Callahans, but that reality is one (of many) reasons I think a focus on only the FSA is a very short-sided and faulty way to look at the "Callahan problem." The "Callahan problem" reflects not merely the difficulty that federal authorites have in deciding which drug dealers are "truly dangerous," but more broadly the disconcerting failure of a justice system to deal effectively (either through prior punishment or treatment/incapacitation) with an offender with "numerous instances of violence in his history" before he gets in touble for dealing crack. Focusing on just the FSA and its supporters for Callahan's crimes is a bit like focusing on what I have eaten over the last two months for the fact I am overweight: sure, if I did not eat anything over the last two months, I would certainly be a lot skinnier. But there is so much more to the story of my current weight and so many ways I can/should seek to improve my weight besides just not eating. Similarly, there is so much more to the Callahan story than the FSA and so many ways we can/should seek to improve our criminal justice system besides refusing to reform our sentencing laws.
3. I will continue this metaphor to try to respond to your second question by highlighting that my eating (and exercise) patterns influence my health and well-being in lots of ways --- both good and bad --- that cannot be measured simply by the number that appears when I get on a scale. Similarly, I think the health and well-being of the United States is dynamically impacted by its crime and punishment patterns in ways that go way past the "Callahan problem" price. In some sense it has to, unless we are prepared to embrace the logical conclusion of what Tarls claims, which is that we ought to take every one of the 2.2 million persons now incarcerated and "hold them as long as possible" (persumable until they die in prison). As you all know, there was a time in legal history in which we just killed or permanently banished any and everyone who committed any serious crime. I trust you are honest enough to admit that only such a form of complete incapacitation --- dare I call it a "final solution" --- will ensure we get no more Callahans.
4. At the risk of being attacked for the Nazi reference --- and please know I do not think modern US incarceration policies are in any serious way comparable to any form of fascism --- my affinity for sentencing reform is a reflection of my enduring concern about any collective societal disregard for the humanity and liberty of those whom a majority dislike or find scary. I am not saying we are anywhere close to totalitarianism now, but I genuinely find it extremely disconcerting to see a contention that, in the US, it would be "reasonable and compassionate" to try to deprivee freedom for all "those already incarcerated" for "as long as possible." That is not a part of my vision of America as a free nation conceived in liberty, but rather a much different kind of nation with a much different set of values than what I see reflected in the US Constitution.
5. I am sorry for the "elaborate response," but I do not think a responsible and serious discussion of these important issues, and the value judgements they reflect, can or should be reduced to sound-bites. Tthat end, I cannot readily articulate a "price of the SRCA" any more than I can figure out the price of the First Amendment or the Second Amendment or the Fourth Amendment --- even though they all obviously have some public safety cost. Efforts to reflect competing virtues and values in legal doctrines and commitments do not come with easy-to-read-price tags, and I generally think smart people who demand opponents to offer up such a price tag ultimately reveals a disinclination to have a serious and thoughtful discussion of competing virtues and values.
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
1. Apart from what prosecutors should seek, do you think Callahan should GET the death penalty?
2. The SRCA is mere proposed legislation, not a part of the Constitution, which we all accept as bedrock law pretty much regardless of cost.
Proposed legislation is nothing like that, and is routinely, and wisely, subjected to cost/benefit analysis. We have heard much, on SL&P among other sources, about the SRCA's benefits. But without an equally comprehensive statement of its costs, cost/benefit analysis becomes impossible.
As I have become tiresome saying, no serious person buys anything without knowing its price. That, it seems to me, is per se a sufficient reason not to buy the SRCA.
3. Given how attractive the ladies in your family are, there must be something quite right about your build and eating habits. If I were you, I wouldn't change anything.
1. Based on what I know of his crime and criminal history, I would presumptively support the death penalty for Callahan. But I would want to have the benefit of a full sentencing file/hearing/advocate presentation before making a final decision on this front.
2. I do not think we can know precisely ex ante --- or could really do a sensible and sophisticated precise accounting --- of the price or benefits of any significant piece of legislation (especially in the federal CJ space). Indeed, even with the benefits of hindsight, such an accounting is really, really hard as any responsible discussion of the (now 6 years-old) FSA would reveal. Can you help me understand what the "price" of the FSA was five years after its enactment (which was before Callahan's murdered) --- i.e., as of Aug 3, 2015, what would be a "comprehensive statement of its costs" in your view?
Or, to focus on a type of federal criminal justice change you want, have you or any others supporting mens rea reform provided a "comprehensive statement of its costs" so that we know whether we should "buy" such reform?
Your clever suggestion that we ought not change the status quo of crime and punishment absent a "comprehensive statement of" costs and benefits serves you well in your opposition to the SRCA, but it is serving the Obama DOJ well in service to its opposition to mens rea reform.
So, to round this out with a pointed question, Bill, would you assert that "no serious person" should support federal mens rea reform without first seeing a "comprehensive statement of its costs," and that it is a per se sufficient reason to oppose such reform unless and until such a "price" is known?
3. Thanks, as always, for the family compliment!!
Douglas,
I see that you declined my invitation to give a straightforward and direct response. Putting a bunch of words together is only one of the criteria for providing an actual answer.
You made a specific claim, that our inability to "vet" people like Callahan is caused by having too many in prison. You provide no research to support this claim. It is AT LEAST as likely that the poor vetting is caused by incompetence or bleeding hearts but you have an agenda, so you only recognize one possible cause and state it as fact.
You stated: "In some sense it has to, unless we are prepared to embrace the logical conclusion of what Tarls claims, which is that we ought to take every one of the 2.2 million persons now incarcerated and "hold them as long as possible" (persumable until they die in prison).
You misrepresent my words. No honest reading of them could come to the conclusion that I am inclined to keep all people in prison "until they die" (although many more should die in prison than currently do).
Could you provide any quote from me, ever, that supported breaking the law? "As long as possible" obviously means "as long as their sentence allows."
We are not obligated to change the laws for criminals. We are not obligated to let people, who you admit that we cannot vet properly, out of prison to terrorize their neighborhoods again.
The point, which you conveniently ignore, is this.
1) We have people in prison who many want to let out.
2) As you admit, we cannot properly vet them for release.
So, do you advocate letting unvetted/improperly vetted criminals out of prison early knowing that many will commit violence again or protecting society and keeping them in as long as possible?
It is not a complicated question.
You stated: "As you all know, there was a time in legal history in which we just killed or permanently banished any and everyone who committed any serious crime. I trust you are honest enough to admit that only such a form of complete incapacitation --- dare I call it a "final solution" --- will ensure we get no more Callahans.""
More nonsense. You are committing the "perfectionist" logical fallacy. You are implying, "YOUR solution will not prevent all Callahans, so what is the point?"
Yes, it is true that we cannot prevent all Callahans. I doubt anyone said otherwise. What is also true is that 5 Callahans are 100 times better than 500 Callahans.
"So, to round this out with a pointed question, Bill, would you assert that "no serious person" should support federal mens rea reform without first seeing a "comprehensive statement of its costs," and that it is a per se sufficient reason to oppose such reform unless and until such a "price" is known?"
Yes, I absolutely would say that.
For that reason, I've been quite interested in what opponents of mens rea reform are claiming its costs would be. The only thing I've heard is that it would make it more difficult to convict corporate big shots.
But if that's it for costs, we should enact mens rea reform tomorrow. It SHOULD BE difficult to convict the accused; that's why we have a bill of rights. Indeed, I would go beyond that: It should be IMPOSSIBLE to criminally convict anyone for behavior he did not know, and no reasonable person of normal intelligence would have reason to know, was illegal or even wrong.
That's what mens rea reform is. The Administration has got it backward. That's not a cost at all; it's a benefit.
This thread demonstrates what is so annoying about discussing anything with Professor Berman.
Obviously, the Callahan case has generated significant negative attention--after all, three were murdered, and the federal government let the guy loose who did it. When faced with this appalling crime, Doug's initial responses (on other threads) were to:
(a) oddly suggest that because Callahan was convicted in federal court of "just" a drug offense that somehow (and he never really clearly articulated this) his violent past really wasn't a big deal and that the crack dealing "over sentence" should have been the deciding factor--even though the FSA wasn't adopted to release violent criminals.
(b) when called out on that non-defense defense, I say non-defense defense because Doug really never took any position--he just threw a few things out there to deflect from the issue at hand--Doug decided to out and out blame the state--after all instead of FSA and those government officials who made this egregious error (and the egregiousness conclusion doesn't even require the three corpses--this guy was violent, and violent offenders weren't supposed to be let out), the state was to blame--well, that didn't work because it was easy to point out that "instead of" should have been "and".
(c) Doug then pivoted to a "there's enough blame to go around" strategy--maybe so, but that obfuscated the real responsibility of the Obama DOJ and the judge who apparently couldn't read a rap sheet.
I can go on and on, but Doug's protestations about his words being twisted (um, no) are just ridiculous.
On to a little substance--Doug loves to argue in terms of an assumption of perfect execution. I wholeheartedly agree that, in theory, perhaps things like the FSA should be passed. But the rub is in the execution--what Bill is pointing out--when things like FSA are passed, we aren't talking about releasing people who got too much time, we are talking about releasing people who got to much time AND others who got enough or too little. On top of that--we have more than just honest mistakes, we empower those with agendas. Perhaps Doug could acknowledge that reality.
But heck, Doug can't even assign blame to Obama for the predations of Kesler Dufrene.
As is often the case, my head is spinning from the claims and complaints of Tarls and federalist, as I try my best to add clarity and sense to my view on sentencing and revisions of sentences. Let's try to focus on crack sentencing and "the Callahan Proble":
1. Everyone --- from the right and the left, from the USSC to everyone who has ever seriously considered the isue --- has concluded that the 1986 federal law that treated crack drug weights/sentences as 100 times worse than powder cocaine sentences was very wrong and misguided and had a disparate impact. The FSA was an effort to (incompletely) rememdy this wrong a full 25 years after it echoed in all sorts of harmful ways through federal law.
2. In part because the 100-1 crack ration was a faulty blunderbuss, we necessarily "over-sentenced" both dangerous and not-so-dangerous crack dealers. And because the sentences for all crack dealers were so crazy-long, there is every good reason to believe that federal prosecutors and judges failed to worry to much really about sorting the dangerous and not-so-dangerous crack dealers at sentencing because they all were due to get extremely long sentences.
3. The FSA was an bipartisan attempt to address this problem, and the fact that many thousands of "over-sentenced" crack dealers had to be resentenced (and because dangerousness was largely ignored at initial sentencing), the law of large numbers necessarily meant that we would get a few Callahans. Indeed, because I have such a low regard for government agents, I am personally surprised we have not seen more Callahans: roughly 7,000 persons got lower retroactive sentences thanks to the FSA, and even if the feds were 99.9% effective at screening for dangerousness, that should result in 7 Callahans. The fact that we have only had 1 suggests the feds have been 99.98% effective in this arena, which is a stunning government success rate in my opinion.
4. I have never conceeded, nor does the evidence suggest, Tarls that we are on a path to 500 (or even 5) Callahans. Rather, it seems that you all are eager to assert that the unavoidable reality commit a terrible crime means we ought to continue to preserve the wrongs of a sentencing scheme that everyone in Congress --- from the right and the left, as well as the USSC to everyone who has ever seriously considered the isue --- view as a mistake and a significant injustice. I presume you are eager to respond that placing enduring wrongs on the roughly 7000 who got release due the the FSA shoudl pale against the harm suffered by a few innocent kids. But that is exactly the logic that calls for always giving every offender LWOP or death so as to visit the wrongs of overpunishment on the guilty rather than the risk of harm to the underpunished. You are, of course, entitled to take that view. But you should be quick to recognize it is a view that fits a lot more comfortably within a totalitarian regime than one committed to human liberty.
5. The inevitable tension between the values of freedom and security/safety is one that all societies must confront, and I continue to believe the Framers came down on the side of freedom, and I continue to advocate in service to that value. You are all effective at making the case for security/safety when you highlight the "costs" of allowing more freedom, but so too are most dictators. And though there are few examples of individuals complaining about having too much freedom, and lots of examples of individuals being oppressed by too much government in the name of security/safety, I will continue to assert I am on the side of people who wish to be free and you are on the side of government agents more concerned about giving government more and more powers in the same of security/safety.
6. In the end, none of this is about placing blame but about threats to the kind of free society I would like to live in. I continue to fear liberty is not a value being giving sufficient respect and attention --- and the fact that Trump v. Clinton is out main choice this election reinforces my fears. You may not see all these issues as linked, but I think that in part explains why Trump ends up becoming the leader of the GOP.
7. Sorry you find it annoying, federalist, not to have a discussion in the alt-right echo chamber, but I hope you at least appreciate hearing another perspective on these matters.
7. Doug, the "echo chamber" is a ridiculous criticism. I've taken issue, strongly, with many things said in here. And Doug, the issue isn't your perspective---it's your constant pivots. It's a pity that it took so long to get to this last post, which is relatively well-done. (The "gee we're too mean to crack dealers" smacks of totalitarianism is serious hyperbole.)
But hey, progress.
Doug,
Your comment number 7 is about as vile as they come and unbecoming someone in your position.
Unless you have evidence that federalist is a white nationalist, anti-semitic, etc., you need to immediately retract and apologize for the "alt-right" comment.
The posters on your own hideous blog have obviously rubbed off on you.
Tarls, if you really think use of the term "alt-right echo chamber" is "about as vile as they come," I can only imagine the vitriol you will be hurling at the Trump campaign in light of its recent "alt-right" associations.
That said, perhaps I am using the term wrong as a description of non-mainstream conservative website and news sources and on-line conversation. (In other words, I do not view the term "alt-right" as the same as calling someone "white nationalist, anti-semitic, etc." If that is how the term is understood by you and federalist and others, I do retract/apologize.) When I Googled "Kesler Dufrene" to confirm I understood federalist's reference in his last sentence, it seemed a lot of what I consider "alt-right" websites starting popping up (and informing me Hillary Clinton will be dying real soon).
As for federalist, I surmise he likes to get as good as he gives, and his comment in response to mine suggests he understood the content and meaning of my snide comment as it was intended. Either way, I do sincerely apologize for using an improper term in an improper way if the "alt-right" comment is understood to be a truly "vile" phrase.
Finally, federalist, I do think we do punish drug dealers way too harshly, and lots of societal problems can and should be linked to this reality. Notably, after about a decade we figured out trying to punish alcohol dealers way too harshly created a lot of societal problems. Disappointingly, we are now 4 decades into a failed and harmful drug war, and yet too few (especially from the distrust government GOP crowd) is eager to acknowledge and remedy this repeat problem. And I do think alcohol Prohibition smacked of a US move toward a kind of totalitarian "nanny-statism" and so too does most drug prohibition seem to me to be in a similar spirit.
I missed the alt-right---reading quickly has its downsides. A few points:
Kesler Dufrene killed three people. Why that's Obama's fault--Dufrene was a Haitian immigrant--he committed burglary, a deportable crime. He was detailed after serving his sentence for burglary and would have been deported. But Obama's executive order prevented the deportation of this criminal--under Zavydas v. Davis, he was released and killed three people. Obama's executive order of non-deportation of Haitians should have exempted Haitian criminals from the non-deportation order--after all, the self-appointed con law scholar should have known.
Why this is alt-right I don't know. I do know this--but for Obama's executive order, Dufrene would have been deported, and three people would be alive.
I also think Doug's determination that the measure of success is that the criminal didn't commit a triple murder is, you know, curious.
Yes, Doug, implying someone is a racist without a shred of proof is vile. Instead of Googling "Kesler Dufrene," perhaps you should have Googled "alt-right" before using it.
Not that I believe you do not know the meaning of the word.
Regarding Trump, you would have been much better off just asking my opinion rather than making assumptions. The only person I find as despicable as Hillary is Trump. Neither could ever receive my vote and my opinion of Trump is partially formed by his alt-right connections.
Yeesh, it seems you both like to be disagreeable based on what invent me to mean without actually being focused on what I have said:
1. Tarls: I did not seek to call or imply federalist is a racist, and I certainly do not think merely suggesting that someone reads/listens to alt-right media is an implication that they are racist. Indeed, I still do not view the phrase "alt-right" = racist (though I surmise some (but not all) persons who are proudly alt-right are also proundly racist). As I have expressed before, I am trouble when people sloppily throw around the term "racist" and I think you really have to stretch you imagination that my snide response to federalist's tiresome claim that I always "pivot" when discussing criticisms of sentencing reform efforts.
2. federalist: I never said "that the measure of success is that the criminal didn't commit a triple murder." This whole thread is about the "Callahan problem" and its link to the passage and implementation of the FSA. And, rather than in any way pivot off that topic, all my comments here have been about the treatment Callahan received by state and federal criminal justice officials and what we can/should learn from his latest tragic/horrific crimes. (Meanwhile, you provided a real obvious example of "pivoting" when bringing up Kesler Dufrene and immgration laws and practice.)
Douglas stated: "I did not seek to call or imply federalist is a racist, and I certainly do not think merely suggesting that someone reads/listens to alt-right media is an implication that they are racist."
Nice lawyer-speak. Of course, you did not say that federalist "reads" alt right media, you implied he lives in the alt-right "echo chamber." Who do you think spends his or her time in an "alt-right echo chamber? Obama? Hill? Pelosi? Romney? Marco Rubio? Or, do alt-right members exist in the alt right echo chamber?
You stated: "ndeed, I still do not view the phrase "alt-right" = racist (though I surmise some (but not all) persons who are proudly alt-right are also proundly racist)."
I call BS. Find me a definition from anywhere that does not use the words white nationalism, anti-semitism, cuckservative (because conservatives want their white wives raped by black men while they watch!), etc. They are a despicable group, which you surely knew.
You stated: "As I have expressed before, I am trouble when people sloppily throw around the term "racist"."
Yeah, you would much rather use euphemisms that you believe give you a degree of plausible deniability. I have more respect for someone who just says it.
You stated: " I think you really have to stretch you imagination..."
I think you really have to stretch the truth...
Doug, by bringing up Dufrene, I have not pivoted, I have shown yet another example of your failure to forthrightly addressing who is to blame for lenience to criminals. I'm not changing the subject or anything like that--why is Obama NOT responsible for predations of Dufrene?
You wrote:
"I am personally surprised we have not seen more Callahans: roughly 7,000 persons got lower retroactive sentences thanks to the FSA, and even if the feds were 99.9% effective at screening for dangerousness, that should result in 7 Callahans. The fact that we have only had 1 suggests the feds have been 99.98% effective in this arena, which is a stunning government success rate in my opinion."
That necessarily implies that where there isn't a triple murder (i.e., a Callahan), the feds got it right. Now, I'll grant you I took a bit of a license, since you probably meant that one killing would be a failure too, but your leap of logic is truly breathtaking--as is your failure to forthright admit to the plain import of your words.
You ask what we can learn--well one thing is that DoJ and federal judges can bend the rules for a criminal and that possibility has to be taken into account when designing legislation to address alleged sentencing unfairness. Would you agree with that?
And Doug, I've been talking about Dufrene LONG before any of the alt-right thing was even a thing. Check your website.
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2012/01/preventable-murder-part-eight-.html
Four years ago Doug--you really owe me an apology. And not just an "if I offended" apology, a full throated one.