Aside from the lack of relevance of anything the ABA does to anything lawyers do, not to mention its desperation to find people willing to put on freebie programs that it will wallow in the gutter to muddle together enough of a schedule to pretend it’s worth a few days off for those lawyers who love committees, titles, and the great majesty of being able to tell other lawyers that they are important ABA-type lawyers, there was the Attorney General of the United States of America to give a speech.
And what a speech it was.
It was rather long. It was somewhat inspirational. Not Obama-quality inspirational, but second-stringer inspirational. And it hit the magic words. To sum it up, while we must still be tough on crime, we must also be smart on crime. See how he got both tough and smart in there? Then he said, he’s going to “conduct a comprehensive, evidence-based review of federal sentencing and corrections policy.” Who doesn’t love comprehensive, evidenced-based stuff? I certainly do.
See? I told you it was inspirational.
But I am here to bury Caesar, not to praise him. It’s not just that I loathe the political resort to studies and committees in the face of generations-old problems, but I similarly have a problem with the guy whose finger is on the button claiming that he needs someone else’s approval to push.
So Eric (may I call you “Eric”, now that we’re all simpatico?), here’s my issue. There are a whole bunch of kid prosecutors who work for you and are busy prosecuting tenuous case and demanding lengthy prison sentences for people for whom there’s just no real need for imprisonment. You know it. You said so. So why not send a memo down the line to all those youngsters to just stop doing it?
I’ll even help (since we’re on a first-name basis now):
And what a speech it was.
It was rather long. It was somewhat inspirational. Not Obama-quality inspirational, but second-stringer inspirational. And it hit the magic words. To sum it up, while we must still be tough on crime, we must also be smart on crime. See how he got both tough and smart in there? Then he said, he’s going to “conduct a comprehensive, evidence-based review of federal sentencing and corrections policy.” Who doesn’t love comprehensive, evidenced-based stuff? I certainly do.
See? I told you it was inspirational.
But I am here to bury Caesar, not to praise him. It’s not just that I loathe the political resort to studies and committees in the face of generations-old problems, but I similarly have a problem with the guy whose finger is on the button claiming that he needs someone else’s approval to push.
So Eric (may I call you “Eric”, now that we’re all simpatico?), here’s my issue. There are a whole bunch of kid prosecutors who work for you and are busy prosecuting tenuous case and demanding lengthy prison sentences for people for whom there’s just no real need for imprisonment. You know it. You said so. So why not send a memo down the line to all those youngsters to just stop doing it?
I’ll even help (since we’re on a first-name basis now):
To: All United States Attorneys and Assistant United States Attorneys
From: Eric Holder, The Boss
Re: Smart on Crime
From now on, it will be the policy of the United States Department of Justice to be smart. Anything short of smart will be frowned upon. This means that you should assess every case, every defendant, to determine whether we the crime alleged is really that big a deal that we need to make a federal case of it. Or even whether it’s a crime at all.
And even if you decide that the defendant really needs prosecuting, decide whether putting the person in prison is worth it. Think of it this way; Would it be important enough to imprison the defendant that you would be willing to take a salary but to do so? After all, the American people, in effect, take a hit every time we put someone into prison, so it better be worth it.
And I’ve got another nit to pick with you, Eric. You’re only talking here about the guilty. What about the shenanigans being played to nail the suckers. You know, the Ted Stevens-type stuff that’s going around your office. I realize that you don’t want to acknowledge the ugliness, but you’re leaving a big part of the problem out of the picture. In the effort to save trees (or bytes, as the case may be), why not get it out of the way as long as you’re already sending a memo. Here’s what you might add:
And while we’re trying to whittle down the prison population, let’s start to consider the possibility that not everything out of an agent’s mouth is gospel. I know, they are fine, upstanding Americans, but sometimes they, well, fudge the details a bit. I want you to start considering the possibility that some of the more ridiculous stuff isn’t exactly 110% true. Especially when there is videotape showing that the things the agent said happened didn’t. It really looks bad for us.
Since you’re on a roll, let’s take this baby home, Eric. This will make a great closer.
After all, you’re the Attorney General of the United States of America. You can do something about these problems any time you want.
Speaking of videotapes, there are way too many showing police officers and agents doing some really bad things to people. Not just lying about what happened, but cracking skulls and such. We’re a little late on the uptake here, and people are beginning to realize that every time we put out a press release claiming that they are conducting themselves in accordance with proper policy, or were justified in tasing someone because they were threatened by extremely mean looks, people are beginning to think we’re a little loopy. I don’t want to look loopy. I want to look presidential attorney generalish.There you have it, Eric. Just copy and paste this sucker and send it right down the line. By the end of the week, we should have this whole problem straightened out, save the country a fortune, return the DOJ to a position of trust and integrity, and make you the smartest guy on crime I know. Sure, some malcontents like Brian Tannebaum will probably still find something to complain about, but who cares?
Accordingly, it shall henceforth by the policy of the Department of Justice to prosecute all law enforcement officers to the fullest extent of the law, provided however that none of them should ever go to prison. We’ve just got way too many people there already.
After all, you’re the Attorney General of the United States of America. You can do something about these problems any time you want.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To stop going full speed astern you have to slow to a stop reverse and then move forward. Holder is taking about slowing down and maybe reversing direction if the conditions are favorable.
I would be more interested if I saw solid evidence that things were in fact slowing down.
I wish I could understand how prohibited behaviors ended up as criminal rather than civil infractions. The criminal justice system should be limited to classical criminal offenses.
The ocean liner metaphor is a nice one, but a rolling stone gathers no moss. In other words, the problem with plucking a metaphor out of thin air is that there’s always an opposite metaphor. AG Holder can compel change any time he wants. Don’t give a speech to the ABA about a study. Tell his assistants to stop prosecuting garbage cases and demanding prison for everyone. You may be happy with slow, laborious, incremental change over the next millenium, but the people going to prison don’t have as much patience as you.
A millennium? If so that means we have to correct for continental drift to detect any motion. I don’t think it will take that long.
I agree with you, but we can’t snap our fingers and have 21 usc 851 go away. (For those few who don’t know, this doubles mandatory minimums for defendants who have a prior or prior drug cases. Two 851s can get you life without parole. One can get you a mandatory 10 or 20 years. The prior drug crimes can be minimal, or what we in Hawaii call “manini.”) Our AUSAs file these every time it is possible. Every single damn time. Even for minor, loser, mule-type defendants.
Eric has to convince those who pass the damn federal laws, with evidence, that those long sentences are harmful, the degrees to which they are harmful . . . children left without a parent, financial costs to society, etc. Without this “evidence-based” based material, Congress won’t change any laws because they ain’t gonna be elected again if they are perceived easy on crime. Eric must show that we are not getting bang for buck.
We in the federal defender world are working at researching and providing varying evidence-based material for all aspects of federal sentencing, including the dreadful, horrible child porn sentences.
My puppy is barking. Aloha.
Scott, I hope you send your post to Holder’s office. I am hoping at least some of the people there (and hoping hoping, Holder himself) will appreciate it.
Let’s not confuse “can’t do everything” with “hasn’t done anything.” Have you seen any change since the new administration? I haven’t. I get the sense you haven’t either. This strikes me as just another variation on “not my job,” with Holder passing the buck to Congress. Sure, Congress has a huge role in change, but so does Holder. His words ring hollow until he cleans his own house.
It would be my honor to offer some ideas to those who have the power to make their sweet words come true. I’ll sit by the phone just in case Holder calls.’