Whew! Summer is flying by. Here is your last article:
Justice Department Seeks to Curtail Stiff Drug Sentences. This article stuck out to me for a few reasons--the interesting nature of how they are changing the policy, and the problem of imprisonment in this country. Plus, have you watched Orange is the New Black on Netflix? It brings up a lot of interesting questions about the prison system as well!
Here are the questions to answer.
Comments below!
Are you excited for school to start? :)
I think the Obama administration is using executive orders to address current problems in a more efficient manner than can currently be done in Congress. The political wrangling that occurs on a daily basis would modify his original goals and possibly prevent any action on his issues, and his job is to accomplish his tasks quickly. All of these orders are political, because of the party polarization in Congress. As mentioned in the article, Republicans will feel that his actions are designed to bypass them and limit their influence in Congress. I think that Republicans are right in their interpretations of President Obama's actions. However these orders are only necessary because all those in Congress, from both parties, have ruined any sense of accomplishment and competence that should be coming from our legislative branch. The prison overcrowding problem is just one example of the surge in executive order usage by the Obama administration. This is a good example because the longer it takes to fix, the more money we have to spend keeping people in prison. Time really is money. In Congress, it would take forever to even attempt to fix the prison system. I think the fallout from his actions will reduce cooperation, which already barely exists, to almost nothing, and further polarize the parties. However, in the name of getting something done, he is setting a good example and trying to fix some immediate, costly problems.
ReplyDelete-Henry K.
I believe we are seeing such a high number of executive orders, as Henry K. mentions, due to the excessive gridlock that is present in Congress. It seems as though all issues handled by our legislature is met with dramatic and aggressive means by both sides, which usually results in, well, nothing. Thus, the reaction to said polar polarization, is to avoid it all together via the use of executive orders. I do not see this particular policy as politically decisive, mainly as it seems to includes multiple benefits, some of which the Democratic party are known to support, some of which the Republican party is known to support. The concept of a less strict dealing (less severe punishments) with criminals is an idea that leans more to the liberal side. But, the result of this appears to be a much lower tax rate on citizens, an idea that Republicans support. In fact, as the article mentions, such a similar policy was implemented in Texas and Arkansas, two Red states, and both saw millions of dollars saved in taxes for citizens. Again in agreement with Henry K., I envision a fallout, despite it being a policy that provides benefits supported by both sides, of increased anger from Republicans towards Obama and his administration, taking offense that he is overriding the Republican controlled Congress.
ReplyDelete- Isaac N.
I agree with what both Isaac and Henry have mentioned above, the base reason for these executive orders is the gridlock, that never ceases to fail, in congress. Ideally we would like some division and debate over new laws that will be implemented on our country. However, currently our two houses have reached a point where they struggle to finalize decisions. Many find this an uncomfortable situation to be in. What is happening now appears as a hands on approach, surpassing congress’ opinion on these matters. Obama’s executive orders that have recently been implemented are a way for new legislation to quickly be put into action. There are large debates on eliminating Congress from this process, but you must recognize that there are aspects of it that appeal to both sides of the spectrum. Now the “fallout” that has been mentioned must be analyzed. Regardless of the benefits that these executive orders may bring about, many people view the President’s actions as a way to avoid putting legislation through (a Republican majority) Congress. It seems unlawful and manipulatory, to an extent. The next question is, what will occur in the future? Executive orders cannot be continuously issued, if they lose their popular support. Ultimately, the use of executive orders may depend on the result of the current one. If there are enough benefits to appease both sides then the support needed may continue to be maintained. The only way to know is to watch the reaction of both Democratic and Republican supporters. We may have finally passed legislation that is a compromise of both party’s political ideas but we also have the possibility of creating even more tension, we can only watch and see.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Isaac N. about how lately it's hard for Congress to actually make progress with their decisions since each party tends to disagree with one another really easily. I do agree with the reasons for this executive order though. It's meant to stop spending so much taxpayer money on prisons that could be used for other things. Overcrowding in prisons is also an issue and there are more serious offenses than possessing/using illegal drugs and yet nearly half of those 219,000 prisoners on the federal level currently are there for drug-related crimes. It's immoral for prisons to be operating 40% above their official capacity. Compromise is essential and executive orders assist in moving things along. Plus this method has proven to work in certain states that are dominantly Republican.
ReplyDelete-Shannon H.
I believe these recent proposals made by the Obama administration are a modernization of sorts that are being supported across the ideological spectrum. As it is stated in the article, “crime rates have plummeted to 40-year lows and reduced the political potency of the fear of crime”. These fears have been almost replaced by a dire need to save money recognized by both parties. From an economic stand point, now more than ever the United States needs to be careful how it spends its money given the exponentially growing national debt. I also believe that the mandatory minimum sentencing laws are unnecessary. Laws are created by reasoning and responding to an issue and should be applied with reason as well. Drug related convictions should be considered and decided based on the facts and circumstances presented to the court rather than by static minimums.
ReplyDelete- Spencer W.
I think the high number of executive orders (which isn't really that high) made during the Obama administration is actually a good thing. At this point, Congress is so focused on party lines nothing is happening. Right now, the only way for the president to get anything done is for him to issue an executive order. So far,most if not all of his orders have been beneficial to Americans and the economy. As for this new policy dealing with drug offenses, I'm all for it. Not only will it help people (by getting them treated for their addiction instead of just throwing them in a cell), it will also save Americans billions of dollars. Personally, if someone just wants to sell and snort cocaine, I say let them. If they aren't involving minors, aren't violent, and aren't part of a gang, I really don't see the harm in letting them wreck their own lives. I would much rather let them have their "fun" then pay for them to sit in prison for 15 years. Either way they aren't benefiting society, but at least the first option is free. I'd much rather pay to help them recover form their addiction because at least then they would have a future.
ReplyDeleteI think the Obama administration is issuing executive orders because it's the most efficient way to get things done at this point. It's much faster than trying to get bills through Congress, anyways. With 3 years left until the next election, time is of the essence.
ReplyDeleteI don't really see this policy change as a politically divisive issue. It will reduce the costs for the government, allowing it to spend money on more pressing issues. There may be some conflict over the "moral" implications, though ("Oh, reduced consequences for crime? Thanks [insert generic politician/government body here]!").
I think this policy change is a good thing. The problem lies in "prison culture." Low-level, non-violent offenders enter prison, and they leave hardened and even more inclined towards crime. In many cases, the offender is labelled as a felon, which severely limits their job options once they are released. They commit more serious crimes trying to make ends meet, go back to prison, etc. It's a cycle, with potentially devastating consequences, not to mention increased costs for taxpayers. Prison reform would help address the problem by reducing prison populations, and giving people a second chance (through drug-treatment programs and the like).
- Nathanial Y.
I agree with what Kalin has stated above. The Obama administration has issued these changes via executive order because Republican and Democratic parties are too busy feuding to truly get any work done, or agree on a compromise. I agree with what the executive order is trying to accomplish. It is a main priority right now to save money due to all of the debt that our country is struggling with. As the article also stated, it is not very beneficial to just throw people into an already overcrowded jail and hope that they learn their lesson. For minor drug charges, I think sending criminals to a drug rehabilitation center would be in everyone's best interest. However, the fallout of this executive order could be that people become angry that the president has eluded putting this order through the Republican majority Congress. This seems dishonest, and as a result could push the two parties even further apart to a point where they are virtually unable to compromise or make any type of amends at all
ReplyDelete-Nathan M.
Personally, I like the idea of cutting down the number of prisoners in America (How are we the Land of the Free with 25% of the world's prisoners?). Drug dealing and trafficking is a serious business, but often times the people who are involved only do so because they feel they have no other options for making money. I see no problem with being lenient on first time offenders and non-violent ones. Everyone deserves a chance to put their life back together, and it's hard to do that behind bars. I do wish Holden would at least let Congress consider the matter first before using his executive power. It implies that he has little faith in Congress, the legislators elected by the people. The more of these executive decisions we have, the less America seems like a democracy.
ReplyDelete~Cat S.
I believe the Obama administration is using executive orders to get things done is because going through congress is much slower, nothing is guaranteed to pass through congress and if the bill got to congress they could modify it in a way Obama would not like. All politically ideologies are generally in favor of these changes. There have been proven good results from these regulations like in Texas a red state. Texas had policies similar to Obama's installed a few years earlier and they saved hundred millions dollars of tax payer money. I believe many states will keep these policies like these going even after Obama's term is over because they are proven effective and eventually there will be a nation wide law.
ReplyDelete-Connor L.
I believe that the proposals made by the Obama Administration are a huge step in the right direction. Unlike some of my classmates, I do not see the problem in the use of executive orders. As Mr. Holder states, this policy is successful across red and blue states, and in a time where Congress has not been giving much reason to confide in them, I see no reason for the Congress to be indignant when the president sidesteps them. However, this does not mean that we should see a drastic increase in the amount of executive orders, or that we should take out the congress all together. As to Kalin F's response, I disagree that we should feel comfortable in letting those who 'want' to do drugs let them have their 'fun.' These citizens need help, but that doesn't automatically mean incarceration. I am a strong supporter of rehabilitation programs and the cutting of prison funding. I like programs such as 'compassionate release,’ and I think that we need to remember that incarceration is meant to help those affected, and that alternatives to it need to find a solution for the problem of drug crimes in America.
ReplyDeleteVivian C.
While in an ideal world the changes in drug policy would be enacted by congress so that they remain intact after Obama leaves office. As others have said, congress is currently highly gridlocked so attempting a passage of a bill that would achieve the same result as this executive order would likely prove ineffective. The idea of having milder punishment for non violent and low level drug crimes seems great to me. This will allow for a large sum of money to be spent elsewhere on much more pressing issues. If a drug offender is non violent, it seems they are more of a burden in jail than outside, even if they are involved in drugs outside. Drawing distinctions about what is okay in terms of drug regulations will prove tricky in my opinion however. Furthermore, congress will eventually be forced to act if states continue to contradict its federal laws through marijuana legalization and decriminalization. It seems that this change is headed to a national level, and perhaps legislation regarding the reduced sentencing for other drug crimes as demanded by Obama's executive order will eventually follow suit.
ReplyDeleteObama is increasingly using executive orders most likely to pass partisan policies that would take a long time in Congress that he feels are beneficial to the nation. For example, his new immigrant policy was very liberal and probably would not have made it through Congress unless it was changed drastically. For policies like that the best and quickest way for the president to put them into action is through an executive order. However, this new policy on criminal justice in drug cases does not seem very partisan or divisive. Both Democrats and Republicans like the policy because it has benefits that appeal to both parties. The fact that it lowers the amount of taxpayer money going to prisons appeals to Republicans, and the fact that it would lower the amount of people and the time people spend in jail is appealing to the Democrats. The only problem with this policy is money that the states are going to have to spend in rehabilitation centers.
ReplyDelete-Elise F.
I agree with my classmates that Obama is using executive orders to surpass the gridlock of Congress in dealing with the issues at hand. These issues of high incarceration rates and overcrowded prisons are issues which need to be addressed as soon as possible, because the rates of incarceration rise each day. I agree with Connor L. that a bill is not definitely going to be passed through Congress and may be altered in a way which would defeat it's purpose, and the Obama administration knows that these new jail sentences regarding drugs must be altered now. This policy on limiting the incarceration of drug related crimes does not seem a partisan one, but a practical one. As long as a crime involving drugs is non-violent and insignificant, there is no reason to use tax dollars to put a harmless person in prison for an unnecessarily long period of time. I believe that the Obama administration's plan to put these drug offenders in rehabilitation centers rather than sit them in jail cells is an effective plan, but I also think Elise F. makes a good point that tax money will still have to be used for these rehabilitation centers instead of the jails. These centers deal with the problem of jail overpopulation but not the amount of money spent by taxpayers.
ReplyDelete-Olivia W.
I agree with many of my classmates in saying that President Obama is issuing executive orders because they are currently the most efficient and affective way of getting things done. Due to the current gridlock and the Republican majority in Congress, it would be nearly impossible for Obama to pass anything through Congress without changes. The policy on criminal justice in drug cases seems to appeal to and benefit both Republicans and Democrats. I agree with the policy. I think it's a great idea to provide drug treatment centers for first time, nonviolent offenders instead of simply incarcerating them. I also believe that programs such as "compassionate release" will help to cut down on the costs of incarceration. I agree with Nathan M. that a fallout could be that the executive orders President Obama has been making could push the two parties even further apart to a point where compromise is impossible.
ReplyDelete-Annie M.
I think these new proposals made by the Obama administration are a step in the right direction for our justice system. Overcrowding prisons are costing the American taxpayer millions of dollars each year, and an effort to fix this problem should be seen as common sense and not an ideological conflict between liberals and conservatives. So many people who just shouldn't belong in a prison are behind bars for very minor drug offenses, which only cost the government more money and do nothing to fix the actual problem of drug addiction. There needs to be more money spent on rehabilitation and less on punishment. I also believe that the criminalization of marijuana is a waste of money and police time. Marijuana has many potential medical uses and it doesn't pose any real threat to society. If a sick man that is running out of options decides to turn to medical marijuana as an alternative method of treatment, he should not be looked on as a criminal by our justice system. Legalization of marijuana, along with proper regulation and taxation, can greatly benefit the nation as a whole and also weaken the power of the ruthless drug cartels that terrorize Mexico.
ReplyDeleteI really like the reforms that Obama and Holder are trying to pursue in regards to low-level drug charges. It only makes sense that we need to do something about the excess of money and people going into our prisons if politicians want to talk about cutting waste from the deficit. The changes like redirecting people into drug rehab and treatment instead of prison seems like a more constructive and more fair way of dealing with drug abusers/distributors. I think that the only reason that the Obama administration is doing this via executive order is because he wants it to be solidified with his/Holder's legacy quickly before any other political fights come up and like others have said, who knows what could happen in Congress. If it's popular on both sides there really isn't a need for it to go through (the current) Congress if it is just going to be stalled/changed/attached with a whole lot of riders/destroyed.
ReplyDelete-Zach M.
I agree with my classmates in that these executive orders are a step in the right direction. I think these new changes have many good benefits that are liked by both parties, Republicans and Democrats. As to Isaac N.'s point, that these changes have both liberal and conservative benefits. Lower criminal sentences and less criminals in prison is more in favor for liberals, and lower tax rates favor conservatives. Funneling criminals into drug treatment programs are both beneficial to the state and the criminal, so I think it is a great idea. The state does not have to spend as much money if the criminal was in jail, and the criminal is given a second chance. This being said, I think there could be fallout from the Republican controlled Senate as Obama is bypassing them.
ReplyDelete-Henry H.
I agree with what most of my classmates have said. The Obama administration is using the executive order more often because of the huge amount of gridlock in Congress right now. However, I see this issue as something that both parties agree with. In the article, it said that states with conservative, Republican governments had started using these changes in their prison systems. In Mr. Holder’s speech, he even talked about how Southern conservative states had been reforming their prison systems. Because of this, the Obama administration probably should have gone to Congress to give the idea for legislation, since both parties agree with the idea. However, at the same time, even with legislation that both parties agree with, they often disagree over the finer details of legislation. However, because of the Obama administration’s decision to use executive orders more often, it will probably cause Congressmen to take longer on the legislation he does ask for, or even ignore it. After all, President Obama and his administration have been bypassing the branch that’s supposed to deal with legislation, and doing it themselves.
ReplyDelete-Kayley B.
I agree with Henry K. and Issac N.in regards to the reason why so many executive orders are being used. It is most definitely due to the excessive gridlock in Congress. An executive order would get the policy implemented way faster. I do believe this issue will have bipartisan support. From what has already been seen in conservative states Texas and Arkansas, the goal those two states are trying to reach is pretty much exactly like that of the Obama administration. I personally feel these goals are attainable, not necessarily necessary, but a good effort to reduce the amount of incarcerated people in this country. There are very many upsides to this idea. One of which being saving the nation money. I also believe the alternatives the system will offer for these offenders are much better for them than being put in prison. Rehab programs are going to be way more helpful to someone with a drug problem than sitting in a jail cell. The nation is headed in the right direction on this topic in my opinion.
ReplyDelete-Jordan B.
I agree with most of my classmates who are in favor of the changes, as I think most people view it as a common sense reform. Why not save money and keep people out of jail at the same time? It is a win-win, and I believe that rehabilitation and programs to make sure people do not engage in more drug trafficking are much more effective than time in jail, anyway. From a purely partisan standpoint, however, I believe it would be in President Obama's best interest to try and push this through Congress. It saves him from claims that he is disrupting the balance of powers, and if it passes easily, then it'll last longer than if he issued it as an executive order. If it is challenged by Republicans (as they have been known to be a stalwart to Obama in the past) then they will be looked on by the electorate as putting petty partisanship ahead of the wellness of the USA. In any case, it is difficult to see a problem with the current reform plan.
ReplyDelete-Keegan B.
The Obama administration doesn't really have a choice about issuing executive orders if they want to get things done. If it goes to congress it won't be passed anytime soon. So Obama is making a smart decision in the way he is getting these laws implemented. I agree with the reform that is taking place to lower the number of people in prison and rehabilitate some of them. (http://www.theroot.com/buzz/prison-costs-more-princeton)It cost more money to hold a person in prison than it would to send them to College. That means we are spending way to much of the tax payers money on prisons rather than education. Obama's direction for reform is a much needed thing.
ReplyDeleteMackenzie Pidgeon
Like Henry K and Isaac N and many of my other classmates said, the reason for usage of executive order is clear, speed. If Obama were to send this through Congress it would simply take too long and just doesn't seem logical when executive order is a better alternative. The unproductive legislative branch that is Congress just simply cannot agree on anything and just does not get anything done. That is why it is such a no brainer to do this via executive order. Despite criticism Obama might get for it, this is the only way to get it done quickly. This is not a very divisive issue because of the benefits and results that keep both parties happy. The Democrats are happy because of the fact that it will shorten sentences, let people out early for good behavior, and prevent excessive incarcerations. However, it also keeps Republicans happy because of the fact that it will lower tax rates due to less needed money for building of prison space. I think this proposal is good for our country as it gives more money to spend on other issues and also gives good alternative to prevent overincarceration.
ReplyDelete-Sean J.
I have to agree with my classmates above. Obama is using the executive orders to surpass Congress. Even though this may seem wrong to some I do believe this may have been necessary to get what needed to be done. With everything in government being so partisan I believe this was a way for Obama and Holder to get things done quickly and to keep this reform from being destroyed in Congress. As Jeffrey C. said above this reform definitely seems like a stem in the right direction for the country. There is no use in using billions of dollars to expand prisons when most of the time these people should and can be rehabilitated.
ReplyDelete-Taylor B.
All laws have been passed for a reason, whatever it may be. Legislation banning the use, possession, and distribution of certain drugs has a purpose, and so does its consequences. Although these offenders may not be violent, I do not agree with letting them off and allowing them to continue breaking the law. On the other hand, I do believe that drug rehabilitation centers are a better alternative than jail. Many people convicted of these non violent crimes would be much better served by somewhere that helps them kick their addictions and get their lives back on track than jail, where they would just sit around. Obama's use of executive orders does not bother me. A president has that power for a reason, and as many other people have mentioned, Congress has proved to be full of gridlock and unlikely to pass any legislation in a timely manner.
ReplyDelete-Natasha P.
I complete agree with Kalin on this matter. Because congress is so focused on party lines nothing is being passed, which causes the Obama administration to feel the need to put executive orders in action. They obviously see a problem with the large amount of people who are in prisons and sees that amount is way to much considering how much we spend a year to keep all those criminals in prison. As Zach said, the politicians want to cut the deficit and they are planning to do just that by trying to lessen the amount of people in jail, which would in turn lessen the amount of money we spend on the prisons. I do believe that prosecutors should not give large amounts of prison time to those who only have a low-level drug charge because we have spent so much money just on one person to stay in prison for large amounts of years just for a low-level crime.
ReplyDelete-Anna L.
I think this is a smart move on Obama's part. He (and many Americans) acknowledge the gridlock that happens in congress. Obama is using his executive powers to pass by congress. The restrictions that have been put in place that decide whether or not someone has a chance to not be incarcerated are very well thought out. If someone had no malice intent to sell drugs or wasn't a part of a higher gang then does it do them any better off to be put in jail for a set amount of years. Of course we rely on courts to make sure that no criminals are just getting off the hook but we must also think that a jail is a correctional facility, which brings us to the question of whether jail would correct someones wrongs more than rehab. For most crimes I think we agree jail is needed, but selling drugs is a different type of crime that can and should be dealt with in different ways.
ReplyDeleteEli R.
Taylor and my other classmates were all correct when they said Obama was using his power of Executive Order to surpass Congress. However, it strikes me as odd that reducing the number of inmates in federal prisons was so high on his list of priorities that he has made this order. The only explanation I could think of is that the issue is relatively non-controversial and should go over pretty well. However, if I was him, I'd bypass Congress on matter that were of more immediate importance. No doubt though, that this is an issue that needs dealing with. I think his policy of withholding the amount of drugs involved with a case will go far in keeping people out of prison. I also praise Holder for the changes he made in the Justice system during his time so far. I like the idea of drug treatment for first time, non violent offenders especially. It gives these people another chance at life, something that some of them may had been searching for but unable to find. Morally, this decision gets two thumbs up. It also saves us the money of having these people in prison, even for a short amount of time.
ReplyDelete-Erin Shafer
I think that all of the reforms that are happening are a good thing. And the reason they are happening via executive order is because it is the fastest way to get something done. These reforms are a good thing because so much of taxpayer's dollars go into prisons when it is not necessary. With these new reforms, more of the tax dollars can go into other things because the prisons will be less crowded.
ReplyDeleteThe prisons will be less crowded because more people caught with drugs will be sent to drug-treatment centers as opposed to prison. I do not know if drug-treatment centers are efficient so this new policy may not be too effective.
-Patrick A
I think the steps the Obama administration has been taking to reduce incarceration rates is a very good thing. It does not make sense for the taxpayers to pay so much money to the incarceration system through taxes, when it usually will not stop the behavior anyway. Having a drug treatment program which will help drug abusers actually stop is a much more sensible thing to do and will save the taxpayers a lot of money. I understand Obama using executive orders to enact his policies, however in the long run they should go through congress so they do not disappear after he leaves office.
ReplyDeleteElijah B
I concur with almost all of my classmates in that we are seeing a rising number of executive orders being used in order to bypass the everlasting gridlock in our nation's congress. I believe that President Obama is making the correct move by going around congress to deal with a pressing issue. The amount of criminals in our prisons which have committed drug related offenses is around fifty percent, which is far too high. Considering how large the economic toll of incarceration is on the American citizens, I believe it is a wise move to cut down on this by not taking the quantities of illegal substances into indictment in small court cases. Although there are benefits for both democrats and republicans in this matter, I agree with my classmates that there will most likely be a fallout, but it is better than the alternative of doing nothing.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of over populated prisons in America, and the percentage of prisoners in jail because of drugs and alcohol is 80%. The punishment for a minor drug crime is more than what I think is necessary. I agree with what Mr. Holder is trying to do for the federal prisons but decreasing the time in jail could also increase drug trafficking because the criminals get out earlier than they did before. Mr. Holder is not just trying to decrease the number of people in Federal prisons but also this would lower taxes a little more. If there are less people that go to prison then that means that the American people would not need to spend as much money on the expansion of prisons.
ReplyDelete-Arrik W.
The Obama administration uses executive orders to deal with the more important policy issues faster than what could be done through Congress. Congress is almost always in gridlock, parties feuding over ideas instead of trying to cooperate to get things done, which is their goal, but gridlock will make this virtually impossible. Despite the bipartisan support for the reduction in crowding of the federal prison system to try to save money, it will still be tough to get the bill through Congress. Executive order would be a better and more effective method. Money that taxpayers give to the government, often up to a third of their yearly income, can be going to foster innovation in American technology instead of detaining low-level criminals for crimes that do not deserve such a sentence. I agree with all my classmates on this subject. Low-level drug charges should not mean jail for ten or more years. A low level offense for me would mean 1-2 years but no longer than 4 years. Our tax money would be going to waste instead towards a bright future for America.
ReplyDelete- Keenan T.
I agree with everyone about Obama using executive orders to get around Congress who doesn't want to get anything done quickly. I also agree with Erin when she says this is a fairly non-controversial issue and shouldn't get too much criticism, after all they are trying to save money and help these people. It is extremely smart to send low level, non violent offenders drug treatment. With this option there is a better chance of getting these people off the streets for good. Instead of jail they get an environment committed to helping them. As Erin said, giving them another chance they may have been looking for. This is a great way to lower the numbers of people in prison while still dealing with the issue.
ReplyDelete-Katie F
I agree with most of the people commenting that the Obama administration is pushing alot of modern ideological changes. But mostly I agree 100% with what Erin s. and cat s. said. I love the fact that they would give another chance to a first time offender, because most of the time their just trying to get money. Also I love Eric holder introducing drug treatment ideas to keep people off the drugs. Jail won't stop you from doing the drugs again , so instead of punishing them, why can't we help them out and put them In a treatment facility. That would definitely change the problem of overcrowded prisons. - alan c.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea to try and lessen the overcrowding in prisons. 40 year lows for crime rates and prison overcapacity of 40%, gives reason for a need to decrease the size of our incarceration system. I also find Eric H. Holder Jr.’s decision to bypass congress a smart thing to do. Over the years it has become increasingly difficult for Congress to agree on political matters, due to party polarization. The best course of action to get anything done was to exercise executive powers, as they did. It’s unnecessary for American citizens to continue paying increasingly large amounts of tax dollars on prisons, more then half full for drug-related crimes, which may be minor. I believe this new policy can potentially decrease the size of our incarnation system and the excessive amount of tax dollars thrown at it yearly.
ReplyDelete-Michael S
I agree with everyone that Obama is making all these executive orders to bypass congress because of how Congress is constantly in gridlock. I agree with Vivian that even though the use of executive orders isn't bad because it is more effective. I also think that this will produce positive results with bipartisan support and once Obama's term has ended, congress will write up legislation that is similar. I personally think this is a great move by Obama because it's 'getting two birds with one stone'. It helps the economy which is still in poor condition and it addresses a major problem in the major inefficiency of the rehabilitation aspect of our legal system. This measure will help us economically and greatly help prevent repeat criminals.
ReplyDeleteWell i do have to agree with you River that the Obama administration is making all these executive orders by not going through congress. I think Obama wants it to be quicker from the lack of congress which they go slow. Even though Obama is lowering the years of prison time. I feel its a good thing because the Nation wants to save money. It can lower taxes, lower the spending in expansion rates. Besides half of the percentage of people who are in jail come from drugs, but the good thing is that drug rehabilitation helps ex-convict lay off these drugs. People should always deserve a second chance to live a good life. So Mr. Holder had the right idea and he's the one america should appreciate other than Obama receiving the credit.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what many of my classmates have stated above, the parties are too caught up in the power struggle to get anything done in any short amount of time. Obama is using executive orders at a relatively high rate to bypass the funnel of Congress, although, this measure is comparatively a lot less controversial than the others that have been stopping up Congress for so long. Its less divisive nature may have allowed it to pass through Congress and become a law rather than an executive order. I agree with Vivian C.’s assessment regarding “compassionate release”, additionally I think that there should be programs in place that help these people entering the workforce, not being able to find a job can cause a backslide into criminal behavior.
ReplyDelete-Annalise H.
Like many of my other classmates have already stated, Obama is using his executive order power to avoid having to go through Congress. But I also agree with Erin S. - this is a relatively non-controversial issue with mostly bipartisan support. Why would Obama use an executive order for this issue when it probably had a good chance of successfully making it though Congress? Anyways, I do agree with this new change to the drug sentencing laws. Many people may make a stupid mistake and get caught with drugs which could land them in prison for at least ten years. But with this new change, it won't really matter how much of a drug people may have which may, in turn, lessen sentences. This change would greatly help the overcrowding issue going on in federal prisons today and stop the major spending endeavor that prisons have become. It will be interesting to see if this new rule change has a big effect on the number of people in prison.
ReplyDelete-Samantha D.
Personally I agree with the use of executive orders by the Obama Administration because as Cedric and River and my other classmates said Congress is currently in gridlock and is not able to make the effective and quick decisions that our nation needs to get back up and running. The reason Congress is unable to make these decisions is because they have a chance to be reelected and feel the need to assess all the consequences of each policy presented before them. On the opposite end Obama like many other presidents is in his second term and is not eligible for reelection so the executive order is the administrations way to get things done in its final moments that he would not think of pursuing if he was subject to reelection. As to the drug policies presented by the Obama Administration I agree with the because it seems like a simple issue that can save the nation money that can be spent in other areas or on the nations debt. As the article mentioned half of the people in jail are their because of drug possession and these policies will give them an opportunity to readdress themselves while saving the nation money. Lastly in my opinion I don't see these policies treating somebody with 100kg of crack the same way as somebody with 5kg of it because as the article described there are exceptions such as the fact that if the person in possession of the drugs is the leader of a drug organization.
ReplyDeleteYosef S.
The Obama administration is allowing prosecutors in futures cases involving drug not to put the quantity, which seems unfair to past criminals who received a worse sentence for a lower quantity of drugs just because the prisons are filling up. I don't believe that this policy change is politically diverse in any way because american lawmakers are letting some of the elderly prisoners free and drug cartels are easier sentences then they should be. Eric Holder introduced polices to have state courts take more crimes. I see that as fair execpt that the supreme court is putting of work. Peter S.
ReplyDeleteObama is clearly to go around dealing with congress. Anything Obama wants to get passed goes to congress to burn and die. If he wants to get changes made in his second term they will only be temporary. But making executive orders is much better than sitting and hoping congress will deal with it. The policy is not a divisive issue because I nobody like seeing money being wasted on jails. 80 billion dollars is way too much for us to be spending on people that don't do anything good for the economy and hurt society. Both parties love seeing a a easier fix to high spending. Smaller crimes shouldn't result in jail time and it seems like the government agrees with that.
ReplyDelete