With a major case in the news, now is an excellent time for America, especially California, to take up criminal sentencing reform.
President Bush yesterday commuted the prison sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff. Last month, Libby was sentenced to 2-1/2 years in prison, two years on probation, and a fine of $250,000 for being convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Bush’s pardon leaves intact the fine and the two years of probation. Libby will have to spend his sentence under supervised probation. And as Bush said in his official statement, “My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby,” including the ruin of his reputation and career.
It’s pretty obvious that Libby is not a violent person. The commutation of his sentence saves taxpayers money and reduces prison overcrowding. Yet Libby will continue to be punished in other ways.
Libby’s case provides an example of how similar reform could be advanced for other nonviolent felons.
Of course, violent criminals should be kept locked up to serve their full sentences and probation. But if convicted criminals clearly are nonviolent. And if they can be monitored, as needed, to make sure they’re not committing crimes. Then they and society at large would benefit from alternatives to being locked up in the slammer.
As of this year in California, of 171,000 inmates of state prisons, 86,000 are in for nonviolent crimes – just over half. And of those, 36,000 are in for drug crimes.
Yet California has space in its prisons for just 100,000 inmates. Just last week, reported the San Diego Union-Tribune, “Two federal court judges suggested Wednesday they were prepared to take steps that could lead to the early release of thousands of inmates to relieve prison overcrowding.”
If even a quarter of the nonviolent prisoners were released – under proper supervision – the prison crisis could be greatly alleviated. And rather than judges acting unilaterally, the California Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger should take preemptive action.
**There is more – click the link**
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
And, Paris Hilton as well?
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Yes. Perfect example Barry.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Ah, this is just rich. Are Republicans going to vote to abolish 3 strikes and end the “war on drugs” as well? And perhaps some GOP legislators could help fully fund Prop 36.
You know, all in the name of Scooter, of course.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Criminals who rob victims with a pen, rather than a gun, still do a lot
of damage. The scammers who cheat elderly citizens of their life
savings should do every day of their sentences.
They may not be literally “violent” but they destroy lives.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
I was asking about Paris Hilton facetiously.
I hope this isn’t all in the name of Scooter. If the last name was Liddy instead of Libby, he’d be taking one for the Pres., not looking for leniency.
The commutation will be another feather in the hat of the Democrats when they win in 2008.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
While they’re at it, I hope they look at adjusting the threshhold on felony theft for inflation. It hasn’t been adjusted in many years and it sends too many people to prison that probably deserved misdemeanor convictions, local jail time, restitution and/or community service. It is currently a felony to steal a bag of lobsters or avocados. Do we need to crowd the prisons (at OUR cost) with those prisoners?
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 am
The “prison overcrowding” nonsense is nothing but a liberal excuse to let criminals go home early so they can commit more crimes. The reason our prisons are overcrowded is that the liberal establishment (in all three branches of government) has decided that criminals need to live in better, more expensive housing than everyone else. Furthermore, prevailing wage laws and other union give-aways make prisons far more expensive than even the most luxurious private buildings.
Instead of letting criminals go home with ankle bracelets, why not put prisoners in cheap tents on cheap government land out in the desert, using trench latrines that they can dig themselves? Let them grow their own food and work to earn special privileges like air conditioning and television.
How about privatizing prisons to unleash the incredible power of the free market to figure out cheaper ways to house prisoners?
The guy who stole my bike or broke into my car might have been a “nonviolent” criminal, but it makes no sense to send him home to commit more crimes. “Catch and release” programs for criminals cost far more in the long run than keeping them in prison.
July 4th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Yeah, Tom, it costs more to house somebody in a prison than your hurt feelings and a broken window. Listen, I’m not belittling the loss of your bike (except that I am), but locking somebody up for years upon years is completely useless policy. You spend a whole bucket full of cash to help make somebody into a better criminal.
California is sorely lacking real treatment options, and no, extending prison terms is not treatment. It just makes people more likely to re-offend. See the 70% recidivism rate in the state.
And yet your solution is to increase the prison-industrial complex, so that we can lock up more people. As we approach 1% of our population in prison, are we really safer for building all these walls?