politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
What are you talking about? If the rich and the powerful get justice why not the rest of us too? Since when has justice been too broad?
That's kind of exactly my point. 90% is still a lot of people and I doubt the database of federal inmates has an "unjustly prosecuted" filter. But there are some non-violent white collar criminals who absolutely belong in prison (including about half of Trump's advisors) so there needs to be something to focus on like marijuana possession or whistleblowers or something else that can narrow the scope.
Here you go.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajherrington/2024/11/26/nonprofit-group-calls-on-biden-to-pardon-cannabis-prisoners/
So all the "he pardoned weed offenses" was just as much of a lie as "he rescheduled cannabis."
No, it just means he didn't pardon all weed offenses.
cough of already released people cough
Right. He timidly only pardoned the ones who were already out. Because incrementalism is about doing as little as you think you can get away with and demanding everyone act like you solved the whole problem.
Cannabis is still schedule I and these people are still in prison.
That sounds like a great place to start; it also wasn't mentioned in the headline, summary, or original article.
The article was about what Hakeem Jeffries thinks Biden should do.
Yes. And I'm saying that a "case-by-case" analysis of "nonviolent offenses" is impossible in two months and if he wants anything to happen he needs to narrow the scope because non violent is not the same as victimless. The drug offenses you mentioned seem like a fine place to start.
It's not impossible, but it would be interesting to know why you think that.
Because 90% of 150,000 is still 135,000 individuals. How thorough do you want each of those "case by case" checks to be?
https://www.bop.gov/mobile/about/population_statistics.jsp
If you want a blanket pardon for everyone with just a possession of marijuana charge that's cool. But it's not what the letter is asking for.
You think the US government can't do that if they want to? We have the technology. And the man power. And the ability to print money. What is the hold up?
Do as many as you can. But the US is capable of doing that with the time left. We're choosing not to.
You realize the money printing department and the releasing people from prison department aren't the same, right?
Having a lot of people and having a lot of people qualified to individually examine 135k federal cases are two different things.
You say it can be done, I disagree. It doesn't seem like there's much more to be said.
I'm trying to guess what your reason for thinking the US can't do something is because you wont say.
There are plenty of qualified people.
Why do you disagree?
Regardless, in case you didn't know, the US can do this. There is no reason we can't and your argument doesn't provide any. edit: typo