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.
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.
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