« US Sentencing Commission provides (not quite complete) "Year in Review" | Main | Anyone eager to help spread cheer by highlighting Festivus (sentencing) miracles? »
December 22, 2023
Prez Joe Biden commutes prison terms of 11 non-violent drug offenders and extends pardons to more marijuana possession offenses
As set forth in the official "Statement from President Joe Biden on Clemency Actions," Prez Biden has decided to use his clemency pen a little this holiday season. Here is how the statement starts:
America was founded on the principle of equal justice under law. Elected officials on both sides of the aisle, faith leaders, civil rights advocates, and law enforcement leaders agree that our criminal justice system can and should reflect this core value that makes our communities safer and stronger. That is why today I am announcing additional steps I am taking to make the promise of equal justice a reality.
First, I am commuting the sentences of 11 people who are serving disproportionately long sentences for non-violent drug offenses. All of them would have been eligible to receive significantly lower sentences if they were charged with the same offense today.
Second, following my pardon of prior federal and D.C. offenses of simple possession of marijuana, I am issuing a Proclamation that will pardon additional offenses of simple possession and use of marijuana under federal and D.C. law.
Upon first read, I believe there are additional marijuana possession offenses (eg, attempt charges and regulatory offenses) that are covered in today's marijuana pardon Proclamation beyond those federal marijuana possession offenses that were pardoned by Prez Biden's blanket pardons back in Oct 2022. In addition, anyone who committed a federal marijuana possession offense after Oct 2022 until today is also covered by the new proclamation (which is, technically, many millions of Americans even though very few get actually arrested and prosecuted for violatons of federal law's blanket prohibition on marijuana possession).
I am inclined to guess that folks at the Justice Department's Office of the Pardon Attorney came to realize that Prez Biden's Oct 2022 pardon grants had some gaps that could and should be filled by an even broader proclamation. Notably, though, this new Proclamation still provide this express limit on its reach: "This pardon does not apply to individuals who were non-citizens not lawfully present in the United States at the time of their offense."
As for the commutation, the list of 11 individuals granted commutations today makes for an interesting read. Most of the recipients are from the south and were serving 20 years or longer for crack offenses. Two clemency recipients were convicted of meth offenses. But none of the receipients will be home for the holidays, as three have their prison sentence "commuted to expire on February 20, 2024," and six have their sentence "commuted to expire on April 20, 2024." (Why 4/20 was selected as the main sentence expiration date is beyond me, though I expect the "weed numerati" will find some meaning in that decision.)
Finally, I find it especially notable and interesting that four of the clemency recipients had been sentenced to LWOP terms and that two of these folks seemingly will still have many more years to serve in prison. Earlie Deacon Barber and Darryl Allen Winkfield both were serving life terms, but will now have their federal prison terms expire on April 20, 2024. But Deondre Cordell Higgins's life sentence was "commuted to a term of 25 years," and Leroy Lymons' life sentence was "commuted to a term of 27 years." Because both of these persons were sentenced in the early 2010s, it seems unlikley they will be scheduled for relase from federal prison until the 2030s. But, of course, for them that still surely beats never being scheduled for release from prison at all.
December 22, 2023 at 10:08 AM | Permalink
Comments
Practicing defense attorney (45 years):
Notably omitted from this pardon action, are the thousands of U.S. military defendants convicted of pot possession under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC 801, et seq. But, in addition to their federal conviction, and whatever sentence they received, a very high percentage were expelled (discharged) from the military with "bad paper," meaning a dishonorable, bad conduct, or "Other than Honorable" discharge. The effect of this category of folks includes loss of pension, VA benefits, ineligibility for most federal and State jobs, etc.
Posted by: Donald G Rehkopf, Jr. | Dec 22, 2023 11:14:18 AM
Excellent and important point, Donald. Thanks.
Posted by: Doug B | Dec 22, 2023 11:25:58 AM
Does today's expansion include people who attempted to purchase marijuana on federal land? Trying to better understand the attempted simple possession category under section 48-904.09 of the D.C. Code. Or would that be a violation of a different section of the Code? What does attempted possession mean in this context?
Posted by: Udi Ofer | Dec 22, 2023 12:06:17 PM
I see this announcement as a campaign promise with very little substance. The pardon's have no names and release no one from federal prison. The number of commutations are practically insignificant. Since Biden took office the population of the BOP has increased by 5,994 inmates. Granting commutations to 11 is insignificant except for the 11 who receive it.
Since the budget of the Pardon Attorney's office has increased four fold since Biden became president, I hope that they have thousands of commutation petitions vetted and ready to send to the White House as soon as they are requested.
Posted by: beth curtis | Dec 22, 2023 3:09:47 PM
I would guess the folks in DOJ's Pardon Office might be able to answer your good questions, Udi.
Posted by: Doug B | Dec 22, 2023 3:27:11 PM
I agree with Beth Curtis. The Federal prison system has grown and Biden has yet to deliver on his promise. I hope we'll see a decrease in the Federal prison population in the coming years. Federal law enforcement is still arresting low hanging fruit as most offenders are convicted of drug offenses or illegal possession of firearms, i.e. convicted felons. Public safety isn't at risk if these folks are released, sooner rather than later.
Posted by: anon | Dec 22, 2023 5:48:47 PM
While President Biden’s recent commutations of sentences that are disproportionately long are a step in the right direction, it’s important to scrutinize the broader context. As someone who has experienced the complexities of the justice system firsthand, I can’t help but question the sincerity of these actions.
The Department of Justice, under President Biden’s administration, is actively contesting inmates’ Reduction in Sentence (RIS) motions under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) based on the new Sentencing Commission policy statement U.S.S.G. 1B1.13(b)(6), which finds extraordinary and compelling reasons based on unusually long sentences. This seems to contradict the President’s stated commitment to addressing disproportionately long sentences.
If the administration is genuinely committed to reform, why are they contesting these RIS motions? This contradiction raises questions about the sincerity of the President’s commutations. Are they a genuine attempt to rectify injustices, or are they merely political distractions?
We need to see consistent actions across all levels of the justice system to truly believe in the commitment to reform. Until then, these commutations, while beneficial to those who receive them, may appear disingenuous in the broader context of criminal justice reform.
Posted by: Kelby Franklin | Dec 23, 2023 10:32:24 AM
Hmmmm. How do we know that the 11 granted clemency are "non-violent?" Doug, what's your criteria for a "non-violent" criminal? We've seen BS before on this--they'll look at the pleaded to crime rather than criminal history or actual conduct.
Posted by: federalist | Dec 26, 2023 2:09:50 PM
Here, federalist, the statement says that the persons given commutations "are serving disproportionately long sentences for non-violent drug offenses." So stated, I am not sure that criminal history matters (though you may still think it bad policy to grant clemency to someoone convicted of a bar fight in 1998 who then gets 20+ years for crack dealing in 2011).
For me, a "non-violent drug offense" is one in which the defendant was involved in drug activity that did not actively involve violence. Weldon Angelos, who had his convictions pardoned by Prez Trump, got 55 years for dealing weed while possessing guns. I would call Weldon's actions "non-violent," even though his possession of guns was the basis for his getting a mandatory 55 years, because he never used the guns.
But as the Supreme Court has demomstrated though a lot of convoluted jurisprudence, defining what is a non-violent offense it always tricky and slippery. I view the absense of actual use of violence to be key, but other might view gun possession or certain types of threats as a form of "violence."
Posted by: Doug B | Dec 26, 2023 7:27:37 PM
You use the term in the heading "non-violent drug offenders"--if any of these guys have violence in their past, your headline is wrong.
Posted by: federalist | Dec 27, 2023 12:04:15 PM
I have not vetted the 11 individuals who received clemency from Biden, but I can assure you that there are many nonviolent marijuana offenders who have been sentenced to life and other egregious sentences. One of the common denominators is that they went to trial.
Posted by: beth curtis | Dec 27, 2023 5:59:25 PM
Fair point, federalist, that the heading would be more accurate if I quoted the offical statement of Prez Biden commuting the sentence of "people who are serving disproportionately long sentences for non-violent drug offenses."
But I would suggest that someone who got into a bar fight at age 21 and then was dealing cocaine in their 30s without using any violence might still be fairly described as a "non-violent drug offender" because of the focus on the the drug offense. Still, this serves as yet another exampe of how vague and unhelpful the term "non-violent" can be. (We might even use folks like Kyle Rittenhouse or Tyquan General to press the issue: if years from now they are arrested for dealing weed illegally to neighbors, would you think it proper to describe them as "non-violent drug offenders"?)
Posted by: Doug B | Dec 28, 2023 11:00:25 AM
Denotation v. Connotation. No one would think that self-defense should be part of shorthard for violent bad guys.
Posted by: federalist | Dec 28, 2023 6:12:40 PM
Lawful violence is still violence, federalist. And that's my main point: using the term "violent" in these contexts is often vague and unhelpful.
Posted by: Doug B | Dec 28, 2023 6:24:44 PM
Doug, listen to yourself. Are you really saying that when we are talking about violent offenders that the use of self-defense would make Rittenhouse a violent offender if he were to smoke weed?? Context matters--you may be correct that "violent" when used to define a criminal can be vague, many many criminals comfortably fall into the term. You are the master of miasmatic argumentation. Bravo.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 2, 2024 11:20:28 AM
federalist, you are making my main point, which is only that using only the term "violent" in these contexts is often vague and unhelpful. And I asked you whether it is proper --- based on your focus on "actual conduct" and about persons having "violence in their past" --- to describe Rittenhouse or Tyquan General as "non-violent." I suspect you have not directly addressed the question because you recognize that the semantics are debatable.
Rittenhouse's "actual conduct" of shooting multiple people plainly involved violence, though a jury decided a prosecutor could not prove such violence was unjustified. That means he was not guilty of a crime of violence, but it does not mean his "actual conduct" was non-violent. Also, I believe Rittenhouse faced an unadjudicated underage firearms possession charge; many jurisdictions consider any forms of unlawful gun possession charges to be "violent" for various purposes. So, many fronts could drive a serious debate as to whether Rittenhouse is fairly described as among persons with "violence their past" or instead as a "non-violent" persons. Ergo, my point: using only the term "violent" in these contexts will often be vague and unhelpful.
(And I assume you have decided to drop Tyquan General out of this discussion because you still have egg on your face after jumping to conclusions about his conduct.)
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 2, 2024 1:36:12 PM
Rittenhouse's actual conduct was non-criminal--so calling him a violent offender (which strongly implies the criminal use of violence) is so misleading as to be dishonest.
As for Tyquan General, I still don't believe murder is an apt charge. The video does not support a mutual combat situation, nor is there anything that would legally negate the right to self-defense. The question is whether the knife was "deadly force"--probably, and (b) whether he was privileged to use it.
Posted by: federalist | Jan 4, 2024 1:28:39 PM
You are changing your tune (again), federalist, if you want to now discuss the label “violent offender.” The question I posed to you, which you continue to evade, is whether it is proper to describe Kyle Rittenhouse or Tyquan General as "non-violent."
The question was prompted by your expressed concerns about “actual conduct” and “violence in their past.” Is it wrong to say Rittenhouse’s actual conduct included violence given that he shot multiple people? Is it wrong to say he has “violence in his part”?
And, again, you set the terms for discussion as not about convictions but "actual conduct." If a DA decides to drop all charges against General, wouldn’t it still be fair to say his “actual conduct” involved violence given that he stabbed multiple people (and killed one)?
If you are not able or willing to address these question about the very terms you brought up, you are just further proving my point that these terms can often be vague and unhelpful.
Posted by: Doug B | Jan 4, 2024 2:10:05 PM
