General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSupreme Court Strikes Down Key Portions Of Federal ‘3 Strikes’ Sentencing Laws
Not just marriage equality and Obamacare...
http://www.occupydemocrats.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-portions-of-federal-3-strikes-sentencing-laws/
In 1984, Congress passed the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the law required judges to sentence people to 15 years to life if they have three prior convictions for serious drug offense or violent felonies. However, what exactly qualified as a violent felony was frustratingly vague and was used as a sentence enhancer in many non-violent cases. A residual clause in the ACCA allowed third time felons to be sent to prison for any crime that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. That potential risk could include drunk driving, fleeing police, failing to report to a parole officer and even attempted burglary. It seemed to be used as a catch-all sentence enhancer for the sole purpose of throwing people in prison for years longer than they deserved to be. This practice has become increasingly more common as more states allow for-profit prisons in their states.
In the Johnson case, the government used the ACCA to enhance Samuel Johnsons prison sentence because of a prior conviction of possession of a sawed off shotgun. Johnson argued that he shouldnt be subjected to a harsher sentence, because the definition of what was considered violent was unconstitutionally vague. The SCOTUS agreed with Johnson and issued a 7-1 ruling in his favor.
...
Now, prosecutors across the country will have to figure out who qualifies to have their sentences reduced, a move that is probably making private prison CEOs weep in despair. The private prison industry has been a long-time supporter of harsh mandatory minimum sentences because that means higher profits for them. The two biggest private prison corporationsGEO and Corrections Corporation of America make about $3 billion annually off of incarcerated Americans; in turn they spend millions of dollars on lobbying efforts.
marble falls
(57,653 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)in the dismantling of some very bad Clinton era legislation.
marble falls
(57,653 posts)bad idea. As much as I supported the big dog, there are three or four really, really bad things that need/needed undoing. Deregulating the banks and Wall Street is one that REALLY needs fixing.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)She really liked three strikes.
TM99
(8,352 posts)I remember he saying that in 1994. One of my first externships was in a prison drug outreach & counseling program. I met so many hispanic and black men (some women too of course) that needed drug treatment and addiction management NOT prison! I remember how angry I felt them, and I am glad that this decision will begin to reverse some of that nonsense.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)political gains. People locked up so soccer moms will vote for them. It is disgusting. I too am glad about this ruling. I wonder what will happen to those already in prison.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Wow. SCOTUS is the most left leaning branch of of GOV currently, only in they are doing what is right.
former9thward
(32,181 posts)It is his opinion. A fact strangely unmentioned in the OP.
riversedge
(70,482 posts)prison sentences--day after day--it is your livelihood !
....The private prison industry has been a long-time supporter of harsh mandatory minimum sentences because that means higher profits for them. The two biggest private prison corporationsGEO and Corrections Corporation of America make about $3 billion annually off of incarcerated Americans; in turn they spend millions of dollars on lobbying efforts.......
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)and Corrections Corporation of America is going on that list.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)"We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three strikes and youre out for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets."
Guess who said that?
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)BumRushDaShow
(130,143 posts)The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cases like this can be brought under the Fair Housing Act, even if the officials who wrote that formula didn't intend to discriminate. The Fair Housing Act, the court reaffirmed today, prohibits not just intentional discrimination, but also policies that can have a "disparate impact" on minorities.
This is not, on the one hand, a groundbreaking reading of the law. Lower courts, civil rights lawyers and federal agencies have interpreted the Fair Housing Act this way for decades, even though the 1968 law didn't explicitly contain the words "disparate impact." On the other hand, the ruling is momentous: Had a single justice likely Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the opinion felt differently, another key piece of civil rights law in the U.S. would have been substantially weakened.
The ruling is also significant because it implicates policies far beyond formulas that dictate where affordable housing tax credits are used, and these policies exist in communities all over the country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/25/the-supreme-courts-housing-decision-is-a-warning-against-subtle-segregation-everywhere/
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Gothmog
(146,031 posts)The three strikes law is a bad law but the other ScOTUS rulings are crowding out coverage of this ruling. There will be three more important rulings on Monday including clean air, gerrrymandering and death penalty
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)Too many people in prison for way too long.
Uncle Joe
(58,596 posts)Thanks for the thread, Scuba.