• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

While eyes are on Russia, Sessions dramatically reshapes the Justice Department

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
36,878
Reaction score
17,899
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"For more than five hours, Attorney General Jeff Sessions sat in a hearing room on Capitol Hill this month, fending off inquiries on Washington’s two favorite topics: President Trump and Russia.

But legislators spent little time asking Sessions about the dramatic and controversial changes in policy he has made since taking over the top law enforcement job in the United States nine months ago."​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.9c0173253bef

The entire piece is written like an unintentional caricature of what you'd expect from a partisan news outlet but my favorite line was ...

"Sessions has implemented a new charging and sentencing policy that calls for prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges possible, even if that might mean minority defendants face stiff, mandatory minimum penalties."​

th


Keep in mind this was not an Opinion piece.
It was written by a couple of WAPO's Justice Department/National Security reporters.
 
"For more than five hours, Attorney General Jeff Sessions sat in a hearing room on Capitol Hill this month, fending off inquiries on Washington’s two favorite topics: President Trump and Russia.

But legislators spent little time asking Sessions about the dramatic and controversial changes in policy he has made since taking over the top law enforcement job in the United States nine months ago."​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.9c0173253bef

The entire piece is written like an unintentional caricature of what you'd expect from a partisan news outlet but my favorite line was ...

"Sessions has implemented a new charging and sentencing policy that calls for prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges possible, even if that might mean minority defendants face stiff, mandatory minimum penalties."​

th


Keep in mind this was not an Opinion piece.
It was written by a couple of WAPO's Justice Department/National Security reporters.

Most of our news outlets have become little more than infotainment. And biased at that.
 
"For more than five hours, Attorney General Jeff Sessions sat in a hearing room on Capitol Hill this month, fending off inquiries on Washington’s two favorite topics: President Trump and Russia.

But legislators spent little time asking Sessions about the dramatic and controversial changes in policy he has made since taking over the top law enforcement job in the United States nine months ago."​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.9c0173253bef

The entire piece is written like an unintentional caricature of what you'd expect from a partisan news outlet but my favorite line was ...

"Sessions has implemented a new charging and sentencing policy that calls for prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges possible, even if that might mean minority defendants face stiff, mandatory minimum penalties."​

th


Keep in mind this was not an Opinion piece.
It was written by a couple of WAPO's Justice Department/National Security reporters.

WP no longer makes much difference between editorial and news, when it has anything to do with politics. They have become much like European, Russian or China's public media without the redeeming feature of giving the reader any information on the thinking of the countries' governments.

It is sad. They used to be a beacon of excellence.
 
"For more than five hours, Attorney General Jeff Sessions sat in a hearing room on Capitol Hill this month, fending off inquiries on Washington’s two favorite topics: President Trump and Russia.

But legislators spent little time asking Sessions about the dramatic and controversial changes in policy he has made since taking over the top law enforcement job in the United States nine months ago."​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6288544af98_story.html?utm_term=.9c0173253bef

The entire piece is written like an unintentional caricature of what you'd expect from a partisan news outlet but my favorite line was ...

"Sessions has implemented a new charging and sentencing policy that calls for prosecutors to pursue the most serious charges possible, even if that might mean minority defendants face stiff, mandatory minimum penalties."​

th


Keep in mind this was not an Opinion piece.
It was written by a couple of WAPO's Justice Department/National Security reporters.

Pretty obvious what's going on.

Corporate America wants more slave labor.

And the right wants more felons who can't vote.

And higher offenses mean higher bail, too. Making the first two easier to achieve.

Its not that complicated.
 
Pretty obvious what's going on.

Corporate America wants more slave labor.

And the right wants more felons who can't vote.

And higher offenses mean higher bail, too. Making the first two easier to achieve.

Its not that complicated.

Well we can at least admit that if you want to put a stop to crime. One way is to make an example of the criminals that get caught.

Too bad we have to observe human rights laws, because some of these creatures aren't worth the flesh their printed on.
 
Well we can at least admit that if you want to put a stop to crime. One way is to make an example of the criminals that get caught.

Too bad we have to observe human rights laws, because some of these creatures aren't worth the flesh their printed on.


What he's actually doing is the definition of insanity. Doing the same this g over and over and expecting a different result.

He's calling for a RETURN to the sentencing guideline system originally enacted in 1989.

Which did nothing but fill federal prisons with low level drug offenders serving long sentences, calculated on a chart. 85% of the sentence served behind bars with perfect behavior. No parole. (Except for white collar crimes. Can't mistreat them.

All of which had NO measurable effect on drug use.

The Obama justice system gave judges more leeway in sentencing.

Sessions, who believes Reefer Madness on pot by the way, wants to take that power away from judges again.

Which means more people in private prisons working for for profit companies.

And more felons who can't vote.

And NO net effect on crime.

Prison is NOT a deterrent. Never has been.
 
I get that this is the "bias in the media" section, and therefore some rote disdain needs to be aimed at the "liberal media" (nevermind that right wing media is quite biased itself), but what's the OP's point?

What is supposed to be false or deceptive about the article and, more importantly, why is it false or deceptive?
 
What he's actually doing is the definition of insanity. Doing the same this g over and over and expecting a different result.

He's calling for a RETURN to the sentencing guideline system originally enacted in 1989.

Which did nothing but fill federal prisons with low level drug offenders serving long sentences, calculated on a chart. 85% of the sentence served behind bars with perfect behavior. No parole. (Except for white collar crimes. Can't mistreat them.

All of which had NO measurable effect on drug use.

The Obama justice system gave judges more leeway in sentencing.

Sessions, who believes Reefer Madness on pot by the way, wants to take that power away from judges again.

Which means more people in private prisons working for for profit companies.

And more felons who can't vote.

And NO net effect on crime.

Prison is NOT a deterrent. Never has been.

Actually reefer madness is a real thing, though only in extreme cases of use and especially when people lace what it is they are smoking.

This isn't going to be a return to the war on drugs era and how people see that, I honestly have no idea.

I wonder how you miss that more criminals being off the streets, actually means there will be less crime?
 
Actually reefer madness is a real thing, though only in extreme cases of use and especially when people lace what it is they are smoking.

This isn't going to be a return to the war on drugs era and how people see that, I honestly have no idea.

I wonder how you miss that more criminals being off the streets, actually means there will be less crime?

The feds, which is who sessions presides over, only prosecute some crimes. Drugs, high level frauds like Enron, Madoff, etc.
Bank robbers. Property crimes against federal property.

I haven't looked but I bet you be doesn't apply his standard to white collar crimes. Doesn't seek to strip parole from them. And their sentences were always less harsh for harm caused.

Half of federal prisoners are drug offenders:

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

About ten percent sex crimes.

There was never any impact on drug supply. So nobody was "deterred".

Kiddie porn folks either I would say, as its a criminal illness.

So its more folks in prison longer for around $40k. Or generating profits for private industries, and there's no moral hazard there. They didn't lock up a judge for selling juveniles to private prisons. Oh wait...

With no measurable effect on crime.

And as half are drug crimes, half had no victim to protect.
 
The feds, which is who sessions presides over, only prosecute some crimes. Drugs, high level frauds like Enron, Madoff, etc.
Bank robbers. Property crimes against federal property.

I haven't looked but I bet you be doesn't apply his standard to white collar crimes. Doesn't seek to strip parole from them. And their sentences were always less harsh for harm caused.

Half of federal prisoners are drug offenders:

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

About ten percent sex crimes.

There was never any impact on drug supply. So nobody was "deterred".

Kiddie porn folks either I would say, as its a criminal illness.

So its more folks in prison longer for around $40k. Or generating profits for private industries, and there's no moral hazard there. They didn't lock up a judge for selling juveniles to private prisons. Oh wait...

With no measurable effect on crime.

And as half are drug crimes, half had no victim to protect.

None of this means that Sessions is done reshaping the justice department, especially since people are jumping on this way too fast.

You are still going to have crime, when you have the people willing to do it. No matter what he does, or doesn't do. He is going to do too much without other changes being made.
 
None of this means that Sessions is done reshaping the justice department, especially since people are jumping on this way too fast.

You are still going to have crime, when you have the people willing to do it. No matter what he does, or doesn't do. He is going to do too much without other changes being made.

That wasn't very coherent, but it sounds like you don't care what he does because he's a republican appointed by trump.
 
That wasn't very coherent, but it sounds like you don't care what he does because he's a republican appointed by trump.

Seeing as I didn't say the words republican or Trump, I can tell that you are trying to find some sort of straw to grasp onto.
 
Back
Top Bottom