When pro-criminal groups thought (or fooled themselves into thinking) that they had a chance for federal sentencing "reform," what they said they envisioned was sentencing reduction for "low level, non-violent" offenders. If you've read that phrase once, you've read it a million times.
Now that these groups understand they have no chance at such "reform" for the foreseeable future, they let us in on what the plan actually was. The stuff about "low level, non-violent" offenders was a head fake. Here's the actual story, courtesy of the New York Times and the Brennan Center:
The [Center's] report also recommends a reduction in sentences for major crimes that account for a majority of the prison population -- aggravated assault, murder, nonviolent weapons offenses, robbery, serious burglary and serious drug trafficking. (Under such a system, the typical inmate convicted of, say, robbery would serve 3.1 years, as opposed to 4.2.) If these reforms were retroactively applied, the authors estimate, more than 200,000 people serving time for these crimes would be eligible for release.
Under a saner system, the report says, nearly 40 percent of the country's inmate population could be released from prison without jeopardizing public safety.
Where to start?
First, it's nice to hear an admission that the majority of offenders are in for murder, rape, robbery, and all the rest. One could never have guessed that from the great bulk of the pro-criminal propaganda about some college kid sentenced to 300 years for smoking a joint.
Second, the estimated 200,000 felons who would be "eligible" for release would make Obama's clemency fest look like a walk in the park (unless you happened to be the unfortunate person actually walking there, in which case it would look like a.....well.....like a mugging).
Third, the notion that "40 percent of the country's inmate population could be released from prison without jeopardizing public safety" is either delusional or intentionally dishonest, there's just no other way to put it.
How do we know that? Well, for one thing, having had only a single-digit decline in the state and federal prison populations for the last two (although now, very likely three) years has coincided with a gigantic increase in violent crime across our major cites. Now maybe it's only a coincidence, but with the rate of recidivism for violent crime slightly in excess of 70%, what do you think the chances are? And when we go from a single digit prison population decline to a 40% decline.......................?
For another thing, what was the crime rate the last time we had a prison population 40% less than it is now? Maybe double? What was the murder rate? Maybe double? More than that?
I'm going to check that tomorrow. Perhaps the Brennan Center will trouble itself to do the same.
UPDATE: I did just now check on when we had 40% fewer inmates than the approximately 2.2 million we do now. Forty percent fewer would be yield a prison population of about 1.32 million.
The last time we had a prison population of 1.32 million looks to me to have been 1992. That year was -- ready now? -- the second highest crime and murder rate year in American history (the year before holds the record).
But, hey, look, the Brennan Center report tells us that if we go back to that, we'll be just as safe as we are now. And the NYT repeats it.
This could give fake news a bad name.
"Under a saner system"?!?!?!
The public wants bad guys locked up, and most folks, when polled, will tell you that they think people who commit the crimes discussed above (murder, robbery, assault) get out far too SOON.
A return to law and order can't get here soon enough.