While I think some of these are good, commuting the sentence of Michael Conahan, one of the judges in the Kids for Cash scandal, feels like a pretty big slap in the face. It doesn’t feel right to...
In 2008, judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella were convicted of accepting money in return for imposing harsh adjudications on juveniles to increase occupancy at a private prison operated by PA Child Care.
It doesn’t feel right to me that he should get clemency for his own sentence when he is guilty of intentionally jailing children in order to enrich himself. He is escaping accountability by the very system that he used to punish and profit from kids, the majority of whom were undeserving of imprisonment in the first place.
I look at it like this, there will always be shitty people released by criminal justice reform and by things like pardons and commutations. If I let that stop me for advocating for reforms and...
Exemplary
I look at it like this, there will always be shitty people released by criminal justice reform and by things like pardons and commutations. If I let that stop me for advocating for reforms and reducing the our use of the prison system, I'm falling into the tough on crime trap.
He was sentenced in 2011, has been at home since 2020 if I understand that correctly and likely would have been due for parole shortly, because he was almost at 85% of his time served. (August 2026 was his previous release date).
He was not pardoned, just no longer costing the feds to keep him at his house or provide healthcare. The lack of true restorative justice isn't solved by continuing his sentence longer. It does make sense that the people Biden commuted that have been out of prison and at home since 2020 and haven't been arrested for violating those terms don't need to be in custody anymore. (I'm also wondering if Trump has said something about ending those at home confinements.)
I think it's reasonable enough for him to be released from all your above points, but it seems like terrible optics to go to bat for an almost universally hated person who seems like they already...
I think it's reasonable enough for him to be released from all your above points, but it seems like terrible optics to go to bat for an almost universally hated person who seems like they already had one foot out the door anyways.
I don't know what metrics his team used when building the list, but I would hate to think someone who may really deserve it missed a "spot" over someone like this.
He was one of many inmates who were moved to house arrest due to their low risk profile (and high risk to the virus) during COVID and has been ever since. Biden commuted this class of prisoners to...
He was one of many inmates who were moved to house arrest due to their low risk profile (and high risk to the virus) during COVID and has been ever since. Biden commuted this class of prisoners to basically make their de facto reality (house arrest instead of prison) de jure.
It wasn’t a handpicked list or something, and the presidents pardoning power is unlimited, there isn’t a list with limited spots.
It seems like it was pretty much everyone or at least a large number of those who had been on covid home supervision for four years. I actually don't think that there were "slots" that he was...
It seems like it was pretty much everyone or at least a large number of those who had been on covid home supervision for four years. I actually don't think that there were "slots" that he was taken from, and outside of the article linked at the top of this chain his name didn't even come up in the initial lists so he wasn't singled out.
I think I said that sometimes shitty people will get included in corrections in the system, and I think this is just one of those.
Do you think it’s likely he’d commit another crime? It doesn’t seem so, both because he’s old AF and because he’s never going to be a judge again even if he wanted to. It should be about reform...
Do you think it’s likely he’d commit another crime? It doesn’t seem so, both because he’s old AF and because he’s never going to be a judge again even if he wanted to.
It should be about reform first and foremost and it seems fine to let an old man die in his own home.
Let me start by saying that I appreciate the perspective you and @DefinitelyNotAFae are trying to bring here, and it’s very possible that, as a teacher, this particular cases raises my emotional...
Exemplary
Let me start by saying that I appreciate the perspective you and @DefinitelyNotAFae are trying to bring here, and it’s very possible that, as a teacher, this particular cases raises my emotional hackles in a way that’s counterproductive. I have a very hard time with people who mistreat kids. It makes me very angry, which isn’t a good lens for fairness.
On the other hand, I also think ignoring anger like that can sterilize certain situations in a way that’s also counterproductive by taking away the sharpness of a case and softening its harms.
I’m indifferent to his age, particularly because he was already pretty old when he committed his crimes.
I also can’t ignore the scope, either. Thousands of children were wrongly incarcerated as a result of his actions. The harm done to them and their families is real, and it occurred during a time when the kids were particularly developmentally vulnerable. I have no doubt that his actions fundamentally changed the trajectories of many of those kids’ lives for the worse.
Ultimately, though, in digging through my feelings about this, I think it comes down to the idea that I don’t think clemency for him advances any sort of justice, even when viewed through the lens of prison reform as a whole, because the “weapon” of his crime was specifically using the harms of that system against victims who were children. He, as a judge, was aware more than pretty much anyone else of how our system works. He had full knowledge of the risks to his own life and freedoms that he was undertaking by his criminal activity in the first place. Furthermore, he willingly used the injustices of that system against kids, and it wasn’t driven by a benign misunderstanding or a misplaced compassion to help these kids, but outright cold-blooded avarice.
Giving clemency to him for now being on the other side of a system that he personally weaponized, on the grounds that it’s unfair at large, doesn’t feel like justice to me. It honestly feels like a further injustice to his victims, because it feels like just another way the justice system is failing them specifically.
I understand the visceral reaction towards harm to kids. I'm stepping on my own right now fairly hard, but I'm not coming from an unemotional place. I've worked with people on parole and seen the...
I understand the visceral reaction towards harm to kids. I'm stepping on my own right now fairly hard, but I'm not coming from an unemotional place. I've worked with people on parole and seen the deep harms of our prison system. And thus have (as a work in progress) developed strong ethical beliefs about incarcerating people. My anti-carceral response comes from a strong place of empathy as much as my anger at him does
This man did horrible things, but I don't think incarcerating him further advances justice more than the commuting of his sentence. The only things that would advance justice, to me, would be him having the internal moral learning to understand how horrible the things he did were, some way to restore the harms done to the children, and deconstructing the entire system (or at least fixing the gaps that allowed this to happen, but I can dream). Maybe his time in prison helped him realize his wrongs, but if not, it certainly won't now. Staying in prison won't restore anything to those harmed and it won't fix the system. And it's damn hypocritical of me to insist he stay in the system if I think the system is busted and others shouldn't be in there.
Basically I think his incarceration, at the least at this point, only serves justice in the fucked up sense that American society seems to keep using the word. There's very little just about any of it.
And if it comes down to this one dude is the cost of 1499 other commutations, I'd gladly pay it. I'd rather a hundred guilty set free than one innocent imprisoned after all.
But does that make anyone’s life better for him to be in prison rather than house arrest? If nothing else, the victims and their parents tax money is going towards housing and feeding him in...
But does that make anyone’s life better for him to be in prison rather than house arrest? If nothing else, the victims and their parents tax money is going towards housing and feeding him in prison.
It seems the only reason to keep him in prison is from a punitive, vengeance once, which seems by far the weakest reason to keep someone in prison.
My issue isn’t with him being in prison versus house arrest; it’s with the symbolic action of commuting his sentence. I think doing that is a further harm to his victims, so I genuinely do believe...
My issue isn’t with him being in prison versus house arrest; it’s with the symbolic action of commuting his sentence.
I think doing that is a further harm to his victims, so I genuinely do believe that having him serve out his full sentence would be better for them.
Not sure what's not to understand. Victims, in general, feel better if the people who victimized them are still in prison. This is especially true in crimes that take advantage of their victims,...
Not sure what's not to understand. Victims, in general, feel better if the people who victimized them are still in prison. This is especially true in crimes that take advantage of their victims, like selling them into prison.
I mean...i'm not sure what area you're working with them, but it somewhat depends on the crime. Domestic abuse victims absolutely prefer their abusers be in jail, as is the case is almost all...
I mean...i'm not sure what area you're working with them, but it somewhat depends on the crime. Domestic abuse victims absolutely prefer their abusers be in jail, as is the case is almost all violent crime.
It's a little weirder for crimes like this where yes, that judge probably isn't going to sell the same kid into prison twice, but even then yes generally victims have a vision of "What's fair" for the crime that was committed against them and are upset should they be released "early".
I am in a different field now, but it was child victims in a therapeutic environment. I went looking for stats, because personal experiences aren't going to cut it. (pdf ) Alliance for Safety and...
I am in a different field now, but it was child victims in a therapeutic environment.
I went looking for stats, because personal experiences aren't going to cut it.
69 percent of victims of crime prefer reducing the number of people in jail through safe alternatives like diversion, community service, or treatment programs.
I'll add more if I find it, it's not the easiest search.
This is the same group that published the 2016 report, which seems to fly in the face of a lot of what I saw when I was last looking into this in the 04-10 era, but I'm also having a hell of a...
Similar info is shared in this narrative Safety and Justice Challenge - Criminal Justice Reform - Victims POV from 2022
This is the same group that published the 2016 report, which seems to fly in the face of a lot of what I saw when I was last looking into this in the 04-10 era, but I'm also having a hell of a time finding any details on their report, just the summary.
I suspect part of this is because violent crime is a VERY wide net and the difference between abuse victim and someone who was robbed is pretty large when you get to actual desires. I can't find any details though to confirm what they're looking at or where they got it from, which makes me suspicious.
They do share a summary of the methods at the end but it's more about how they sampled than the specifics of what crimes people were victims of. Individual victim experiences vary a lot, I found a...
They do share a summary of the methods at the end but it's more about how they sampled than the specifics of what crimes people were victims of. Individual victim experiences vary a lot, I found a smaller study of about 40 victims who spoke with their offenders and certainly some felt things were "too easy" on them and it wasn't enough punishment. Others felt that incarceration was too severe or for too long of a time. There's no one true "all victims feel this way."
There are days I wish the people who harmed me burn in the heart of a sun forever, and days where I want to care nothing about them and days where I want them to find some sort of peace, I'm sure many victims experience a back and forth through all of that as well.
But it is frustrating to provide some data and have it be sort of dismissed. This also doesn't really address whether the impact on the victims should be one of the primary considerations in things like sentencing. Or if like the trial itself it's about crimes against the state and thus the state outcomes. There's not a settled answer on this either with different systems using different things for different crimes. Without polling this guy's and every person's specific victims we can't know their specific answers.
I'm not trying to exactly dismiss the data but I am always suspicious of any study that's "summarized" in such a way and doesn't provide enough detail on methodology. Especially when you basically...
I'm not trying to exactly dismiss the data but I am always suspicious of any study that's "summarized" in such a way and doesn't provide enough detail on methodology. Especially when you basically linked to it twice as two seperate references.
Not that I think you're trying to mislead me, but I do think that when there's only one poorly defined study being cited all over the place, things are often less accurate than one might hope. I'm extremely hesitant when you can't just look at the underlying data, which ought to be published somewhere but I can't seem to find anything but this infographic.
I didn't realize the second paper I linked only drew from the same study, and I appreciated you pointing it out. But I haven't nailed down the right keywords to find more data. I scrolled through...
I didn't realize the second paper I linked only drew from the same study, and I appreciated you pointing it out.
But I haven't nailed down the right keywords to find more data. I scrolled through a few articles on Google scholar but there's a limit to how much academic research I can dig through with a day job and a pending root canal. I'm happy to look at any data you can find to the contrary. Our personal experiences differ so I think research is the next best step or agreeing that victims differ and that we can't know the specific feelings of these victims without a poll so moving on from there.
Please feel free to doubt the data I linked, but point me to something else that is some sort of large study of victims' beliefs instead.
I went through the entire 2023 questionnaire and it's beefy so I could have missed it, but I didn't see questions about victims opinions about incarceration or other parts of the system for offenders.
I went through the entire 2023 questionnaire and it's beefy so I could have missed it, but I didn't see questions about victims opinions about incarceration or other parts of the system for offenders.
This is a part of the issue and why I'd like to see the data collected from the 2016 study. The last time I looked at this kind of data it required a ton of combining from different sources to...
This is a part of the issue and why I'd like to see the data collected from the 2016 study. The last time I looked at this kind of data it required a ton of combining from different sources to even get close to something like this.
Supposedly the 2016 study has done their own survey on such a thing, but the fact they don't actually appear to provide the results anywhere makes me suspect (i'd expect it to be paywalled but I can't even find that).
Unfortunately I do not have the time to do such a deep dive these days, as it's a hell of a lot more than just some engine searches.
To be clear I'm not saying i'm 100% right here. It's very possible the 2016 data sheds much better light on the subject and should be referenced, but without being able to dive into that, and with the only other alternative being a very lengthy dive into multiple census sources, I can't do much else.
They hired a polling company to do the survey, so it's not an academic study but more like a political poll. If we're going to doubt whether it happened, I suppose we should doubt everything. But...
They hired a polling company to do the survey, so it's not an academic study but more like a political poll. If we're going to doubt whether it happened, I suppose we should doubt everything. But I've poked around and don't believe the dataset has been made public or that it's been repeated.
I understand holding claims to high standard, I only ask you do the same to your own claims. From my perspective, I shared my experience and you shared yours, so I went looking for data and found what I provided to you. You've criticized that data, fair enough, but provided nothing in return, and ceded at best that you might not be 100% right, but also some implication that my data is outright falsified.
At least I brought something that addressed the topic and to the best of my knowledge and ability is valid even if only due to the reputation of the org that performed the survey? Essentially it feels that conversation on this is impossible by these standards. I'm disappointed but will let the thread die.
If the government is at all concerned about the population having any faith in the justice system, this is completely counterproductive and only serves to further weaken the justice system's...
If the government is at all concerned about the population having any faith in the justice system, this is completely counterproductive and only serves to further weaken the justice system's reputation.
Why? It shows how it’s becoming less punitive and more pragmatic. The US is well known for over-jailing and trimming inmates who do not need to be in prison (and haven’t been for 4 years) from...
Why? It shows how it’s becoming less punitive and more pragmatic. The US is well known for over-jailing and trimming inmates who do not need to be in prison (and haven’t been for 4 years) from prison seems like a positive sign for the criminal justice system.
Sure, we certainly over-jail on average, but this just comes off as another rich/politically connected elite getting off much easier than they should. The man is responsible for the equivalent of...
Sure, we certainly over-jail on average, but this just comes off as another rich/politically connected elite getting off much easier than they should. The man is responsible for the equivalent of human trafficking and slavery of thousands. We've already got an incoming president and his rich buddies getting away with crimes that would get a normal person the death penalty. The wealthy and powerful already increasingly face no consequences for their absolutely awful actions, and it's getting worse every day, hence the recent support for vigilantism. This just feeds into that.
There’s no reason to believe there’s any underhanded dealings. The ex-judge just happened to be in a class of semi-released non-violent criminals that Biden is commuting to reduce the strain on...
There’s no reason to believe there’s any underhanded dealings. The ex-judge just happened to be in a class of semi-released non-violent criminals that Biden is commuting to reduce the strain on the prison system.
Maybe not, but it still feeds into that perception. Optics matter. This is one of the worst times to show that abusing your position in the legal system and ruining the lives of hundreds or...
Maybe not, but it still feeds into that perception. Optics matter. This is one of the worst times to show that abusing your position in the legal system and ruining the lives of hundreds or thousands doesn't result in real consequences, and even if you do face consequences, you might just get pardoned by the president anyway. I would also disagree with this being non-violent - just because he didn't do the dirty work of physically trapping people himself doesn't mean he's not responsible for violence towards his numerous victims.
I get it's part of an overall set of pardons, but it still is contributing to the death of the justice system and any semblance of the law being impartial. I guess we're already past that point, though, so maybe it doesn't actually matter. If we're at that point, fuck it, pardon everyone.
That’s not the point of the “violence” criteria - it’s that it’s unlikely to reoccur. Anyone can go beat someone with a bat or shoot them with a bullet. The criminal in this case can’t exactly...
That’s not the point of the “violence” criteria - it’s that it’s unlikely to reoccur. Anyone can go beat someone with a bat or shoot them with a bullet.
The criminal in this case can’t exactly just become a judge again and repeat his crimes. There’s no reason, given his history, to believe that he’d commit other crimes.
Maybe idiots will misconstrue this in dumb ways, but I don’t think it’s in any way an inherently partial or biased or corrupt use of clemency.
By that logic, should we simply never punish old people? I get the argument about reform, but it seems like it entirely forgets about deterrence. This man is a monster who ruined so many lives — I...
By that logic, should we simply never punish old people? I get the argument about reform, but it seems like it entirely forgets about deterrence. This man is a monster who ruined so many lives — I can’t see a justification for clemency. Also, he was already going to die in his own home -- he was on house arrest.
Everything we know about prevention shows that the likelihood of being caught and punished is a far more important factor than the severity of the punishment if you get caught, above a certain...
Everything we know about prevention shows that the likelihood of being caught and punished is a far more important factor than the severity of the punishment if you get caught, above a certain threshold. We should be focusing on rooting out more schemes like this one.
Depending on one's view of prison no one should be incarcerated without there being a current risk to society. But he served over 13 years of an 18 year term. I don't think that inherently lacks...
Depending on one's view of prison no one should be incarcerated without there being a current risk to society. But he served over 13 years of an 18 year term. I don't think that inherently lacks deterrence if that is one's goal.
Even 18 years seems trivial in comparison to the thousands of children who he and Ciavarella illegally imprisoned. It's hard to really grasp the scale of this -- we're talking about imprisoning...
Even 18 years seems trivial in comparison to the thousands of children who he and Ciavarella illegally imprisoned. It's hard to really grasp the scale of this -- we're talking about imprisoning thousands of children. And where's the justice for Edward Kenzakoski, who committed suicide after being sentenced by these corrupt judges?
Also, he didn't even really serve 13 years in prison. He served 9 years, and then was transferred to house arrest. Now he's just free.
Sure it does, but his incarceration does little to nothing to make those children whole, to make the community safer or to change him as a person. That leaves deterrence and punishment. These are...
Sure it does, but his incarceration does little to nothing to make those children whole, to make the community safer or to change him as a person. That leaves deterrence and punishment. These are some of the worst reasons for using incarceration in my opinion.
But if there are a bunch more people signing up for just 9 years of prison and 4 of home confinement to abuse their positions, I'll accept that I'm wrong. Also, home confinement is being in custody, it is kinder than prison, but it's not freedom. They don't get "wander around town" hours they get to leave for work (seems unlikely in his case) and doctor's appointments on top of that. They were not going to put him back in prison as the BoP said anyone at home due to COVID would stay home unless they violated the terms (which is usually not just a parole violation but an actual felony escape charge with new prison time).
We don't do restorative justice here and because of that it just really leaves punishment on the table. Which means there is no amount that will ever feel satisfying. And if I believe in not locking kids up in prison (for the actual reasons our system says they should be rather than the specific corruption in this case) and not locking other people up who aren't a danger to the community, I have to be consistent and not want him locked up either. He sucks. But his incarceration doesn't fix theirs. I don't want to perpetuate our broken system out of vengenace.
Yeah, I agree with you. I should be more of an abolitionist considering how dehumanizing our prison system is, but he caused so much harm and suffering I cannot agree with shortening his sentence....
Yeah, I agree with you. I should be more of an abolitionist considering how dehumanizing our prison system is, but he caused so much harm and suffering I cannot agree with shortening his sentence. The harm he did is beyond the pale, and I feel like it should be treated like a violent crime, not to be pardoned.
It’s absolutely a violent crime. How much abuse did those thousands of children endure in those prisons? The layer of indirection shouldn’t matter here. If he kidnapped 2,300 children and kept...
It’s absolutely a violent crime. How much abuse did those thousands of children endure in those prisons?
The layer of indirection shouldn’t matter here. If he kidnapped 2,300 children and kept them in his basement he would never see the light of day. Instead, using the state’s security apparatus to do it, should be considered an aggravating circumstance rather than mitigating it.
If he had personally kidnapped children, he would likely still be capable of doing so and would be a risk to the community. As he no longer has the power to incarcerate children he's most likely...
If he had personally kidnapped children, he would likely still be capable of doing so and would be a risk to the community. As he no longer has the power to incarcerate children he's most likely not a danger to any more children. Once again, this is all getting into whether the time in prison is punishment or serves another purpose. If just punishment then I don't see any amount of time that is sufficient and therefore it really doesn't matter if he served the full 17 .5 years or not because it still would be enough. It wouldn't matter how many aggravating factors you laid on top of it.
I think there's a false dichotomy there. Time in prison serves multiple purposes. According to most models: Retribution Incapacitation Deterrence Rehabilitation There are some crimes that are of...
Once again, this is all getting into whether the time in prison is punishment or serves another purpose.
I think there's a false dichotomy there. Time in prison serves multiple purposes. According to most models:
Retribution
Incapacitation
Deterrence
Rehabilitation
There are some crimes that are of such vast scale that retribution needs to be addressed, whether they are physically capable of committing that crime again or not.
I don't agree that it's a false dichotomy. I'm saying it raises the question of whether retribution should even be on the list. Especially if it becomes the only reason someone is incarcerated,...
I don't agree that it's a false dichotomy. I'm saying it raises the question of whether retribution should even be on the list. Especially if it becomes the only reason someone is incarcerated, particularly since our system does not do rehabilitation. I referenced the other reasons you listed here in another comment.
Your last sentence is a philosophical opinion but not necessarily a fact. I don't think punishment/retribution is particularly useful. I mean we could just kill the man if he needs punishment that badly.
I mean, being old is one of the main reasons people get parole, so yeah. Obviously it does vary somewhat by circumstance, but in this case it seems fine.
I mean, being old is one of the main reasons people get parole, so yeah. Obviously it does vary somewhat by circumstance, but in this case it seems fine.
This is a really off-putting take for a man who literally sent more than 2,300 potentially innocent children to rot in institutional prisons for money.
This is a really off-putting take for a man who literally sent more than 2,300 potentially innocent children to rot in institutional prisons for money.
He also "pardoned" Rita Crundwell who embezzled 60~ million dollars from her small town and crippled it to fund her horse addiction (she owned 400+ horses at the time of her arrest.) Another...
Another person who got off was Eric Bloom "the onetime leader of a Northbrook management firm who defrauded investors of more than $665 million." Seems like an awful lot of rich and powerful people getting out of their consequences, as per usual I guess.
There are some wild takes going on in this thread right now, I can't help but imagine what kind of response this would have gotten on Tildes if the headline was "Trump pardons corrupt rich and powerful people" instead of Biden. (Which is ironic because its almost certainly going to happen in 2025)
I would certainly feel differently if those people had specifically been given pardons and not as a group that also included a lot of non-rich, non-powerful people.
I would certainly feel differently if those people had specifically been given pardons and not as a group that also included a lot of non-rich, non-powerful people.
I'm confused why it was completely necessary to have them be grouped together... If the White house has the time to go through and create sappy PR-bait biographies for several dozen of the...
I'm confused why it was completely necessary to have them be grouped together... If the White house has the time to go through and create sappy PR-bait biographies for several dozen of the deserving pardons, they don't have the time to have at least 1 or 2 guys going through the cases to make sure they don't pardon several ridiculously corrupt criminals? I guess we have to take the bad with the good.
Honestly just 1 glance at the case file for "guy who wrongly imprisoned 2300+ children for money" should have been enough to exclude him from the list of the "many who served in the U.S. military and all are active in their communities, either through church or volunteer work."
Especially after giving this statement about the act:
"My administration will continue reviewing clemency petitions to advance equal justice under the law, promote public safety, support rehabilitation and reentry, and provide meaningful second chances," Biden said in his statement on Thursday.
Which heavily implies that these cases were all reviewed individually, when obviously they were not (or else that raises even more questions) This is all on the top of the blanket pardon he gave to his own son earlier this month, so concerns about corruption are definitely on people's minds.
Do we really think this old dude paid Biden for this? If so, he didn't spring for the "pardon" level? He got ripped off. These people all* did crimes. They all hurt people. Probably every one...
Do we really think this old dude paid Biden for this? If so, he didn't spring for the "pardon" level? He got ripped off.
These people all* did crimes. They all hurt people. Probably every one could have objections.
For me this is consistent with prison reform. Even shitty people will benefit from it. But society as a whole is probably better for these people not being in custody. We'll never stop fixating on being "tough on crime" if reform is consistently sidelined by "except this guy" and "oh no she actually deserves it*
Which means we probably will never end it. I've worked for a private prison company, albeit in re-entry. I've watched people wish prison rape on someone for shoplifting. It's common enough that SpongeBob has made prison rape jokes. And any time we make a step towards trying to fix things, we as a society bail on it immediately if there's the smallest flaw.
*Obviously some may be innocent and wrongfully convicted. I have no way to know who.
The article says that a large portion of them were non-violent drug related offenses. I fully support commuting those charges because they're almost always actual victimless crimes. I don't...
These people all* did crimes. They all hurt people.
The article says that a large portion of them were non-violent drug related offenses. I fully support commuting those charges because they're almost always actual victimless crimes.
I don't support clemency for the very people who are responsible for making the system as broken as it is today, and I'm allowed to be upset that it happened.
Just because I can't fix an issue doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be angry and upset when it happens and comment on how unfair and frustrating it is.
Do we really think this old dude paid Biden for this? If so, he didn't spring for the 'pardon" level? He got ripped off.
Honestly? Who knows. I will say I find it infinitely more likely that this man among many of his peers has gotten much better treatment by the justice system in general than the thousands of children whose lives he destroyed. I suppose it's just a coincidence it just so happens to be a rich white influential corrupt ex-judge who gets to be part of this sudden act of mercy and altruism by the US government. Not to mention he was already only on house arrest, which is insanely lenient given how big of a monster he was. It's truly mind-boggling that anyone would be ok with this guy walking free no matter how old he is.
You're perfectly allowed to be upset. You don't have to agree with me. While I agree with you on drug offenses, I am sure there are others who would feel that drug dealers destroy lives as much as...
The article says that a large portion of them were non-violent drug related offenses. I fully support commuting those charges because they're almost always actual victimless crimes.
I don't support clemency for the very people who are responsible for making the system as broken as it is today, and I'm allowed to be upset that it happened.
Just because I can't fix an issue doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be angry and upset when it happens and comment on how unfair and frustrating it is.
You're perfectly allowed to be upset. You don't have to agree with me. While I agree with you on drug offenses, I am sure there are others who would feel that drug dealers destroy lives as much as or more than he did, since their products can kill. That's what I mean, that every person on this list probably has someone feeling as strongly about their release as you do.
Honestly? Who knows. I will say I find it infinitely more likely that this man among many of his peers has gotten much better treatment by the justice system in general than the thousands of children whose lives he destroyed. I suppose it's just a coincidence it just so happens to be a rich white influential corrupt ex-judge who gets to be part of this sudden act of mercy and altruism by the US government. Not to mention he was already only on house arrest, which is insanely lenient given how big of a monster he was. It's truly mind-boggling that anyone would be ok with this guy walking free no matter how old he is.
I mean I think that he probably was in minimum security for example because we classify "security levels" generally by violence. And affluent white men tend to be convicted of white collar felonies at higher rates. And I think he was sent home on house arrest during COVID (note that this was not his original sentence but a 2020 thing to prevent deaths in prison) due to that security status combined with his age. Those things, that privilege, absolutely played a part in why he's on this list. Same with some woman who ripped off a bunch of money from a small city near me who's also on the "fuck this list" for local people. But I do think "corruption/bribery" as the reason falls into conspiracy theories in absence of specific evidence.
I don't want people in prison at all whenever possible so I guess be mindboggled by me. I want there to be some restorative justice aspect here but our system doesn't have that or rehabilitation on its list. He cannot hurt anyone else at this point. Hell, this way his previous victims can go kick his ass if they want, if we're doing retribution. Locking people in small rooms in dangerous environments until they're unable to function outside of it, guarded by equally institutionalized COs, is not how I think we end the cycles we're caught in. It's not like this exception to the rules fixes the system, but it's better than 1500 people remaining in custody.
Oh I completely misjudged this, I thought it meant like possession charges (aka getting caught with weed or something similar) is that not the case? I would agree that drug dealers definitely have...
While I agree with you on drug offenses, I am sure there are others who would feel that drug dealers destroy lives as much as or more than he did.
Oh I completely misjudged this, I thought it meant like possession charges (aka getting caught with weed or something similar) is that not the case? I would agree that drug dealers definitely have a little more responsibility for suffering if that's the case, but I think it also matters what drug is was so that context is important to me. Something like weed or LSD or mushrooms isn't nearly as damaging as fent or heroin.
I don't want people in prison at all whenever possible so I guess be mindboggled by me.
This is definitely a fair take, the prison system in the US and in the wider world is definitely broken and inhumane, I don't know if I'm as far down the list as "no prisons at all" but I am definitely an advocate for less prisons. But I imagine the 2300+ kids whose lives got ruined by this monster would feel a lot better if he actually got thrown in jail like they were instead of serving out the rest his sentence in a cushy house arrest situation and then being let off. It must feel like complete shit to see that guy get off.
I'm not going through a list but being in federal prison on felony drug charges will include a wide range of people due to quantity of drugs, type of drugs, and where they got caught making it...
Oh I completely misjudged this, I thought it meant like possession charges (aka getting caught with weed or something similar) is that not the case? I would agree that drug dealers definitely have a little more responsibility for suffering if that's the case, but I think it also matters what drug is was so that context is important to me. Something like weed or LSD or mushrooms isn't nearly as damaging as fent or heroin.
I'm not going through a list but being in federal prison on felony drug charges will include a wide range of people due to quantity of drugs, type of drugs, and where they got caught making it federal jurisdiction. I could be a user still responsible for the deaths of others if my friend who I shared with died. The family of someone deep in addiction may feel that the financial and emotional ruin to their lives is also worth someone "rotting in jail" forever. There's no magic "no one could possibly be harmed" sort of crime category. Individual instances, sure, but lots of things have knock-on effects.
This is definitely a fair take, the prison system in the US and in the wider world is definitely broken and inhumane, I don't know if I'm as far down the list as "no prisons at all" but I am definitely an advocate for less prisons. But I imagine the 2300+ kids whose lives got ruined by this monster would feel a lot better if he actually got thrown in jail like they were instead of serving out the rest his sentence in a cushy house arrest situation and then being let off. It must feel like complete shit to see that guy get off.
Maybe, I can't speak for them, but there's a reason why the victims aren't the judge, jury and executioner. That system would be crueler overall I think, not kinder. Though there have been plenty of times where the flip side is true and victims or their families have advocated for mercy when the general public has demanded blood. Society makes these calls because it impacts so many more people than just the direct victims (the number of people victimized by a murder includes the people that have to clean up afterwards, and the police and medical personnel, and the witnesses and the people who found the body, and so on.). Some systems let victims give statements but they're not binding.
I want to be clear, that it's not that I don't care about the harm he did. But I've worked with literal murderers. Human dignity, and mercy, and all the things, should not be limited to only the people we like.
Those were two separate categories. 39 people were pardoned - they are no longer criminals at all. For these, their backgrounds were detailed. The rest merely had their sentences commuted. They...
Those were two separate categories. 39 people were pardoned - they are no longer criminals at all. For these, their backgrounds were detailed.
The rest merely had their sentences commuted. They are still criminals, just out of prison. Notice how this category was carefully picked to be safe - everyone who had their sentence commuted was already out of prison since 2020.
From just the difference in magnitude - 40 vs over 1000 - you can see which list had scrutiny applied and which list didn’t.
As the top comment notes: He's served his sentence for what he's done. Keeping him jailed basically just satisfies our monkey brain desire for revenge.
As the top comment notes:
The 1,500 people had been serving long prison sentences that would have been shorter under today's laws and practices.
He's served his sentence for what he's done. Keeping him jailed basically just satisfies our monkey brain desire for revenge.
But... he hasn't served his sentence? I mean, isn't that the whole point here, that he is not going to serve his sentence? I don't understand what you mean.
But... he hasn't served his sentence? I mean, isn't that the whole point here, that he is not going to serve his sentence? I don't understand what you mean.
He has served the number of years that his sentence would merit if he were sentenced today. I like when bad guys have bad things happen to them too, but I like living in a society that isn't just...
He has served the number of years that his sentence would merit if he were sentenced today. I like when bad guys have bad things happen to them too, but I like living in a society that isn't just based on maximizing revenge even more.
Disclaimer: I have absolutely zero objective knowledge as to the reason for this. What follows is simply educated conjecture. My best guess would be some backroom politics tit-for-tat. In order to...
Disclaimer: I have absolutely zero objective knowledge as to the reason for this. What follows is simply educated conjecture.
My best guess would be some backroom politics tit-for-tat. In order to do something else, or get something else done, this was the price or part of the price. Again, just my best guess.
That doesn’t pass Occam’s razor. Biden explained who is having their sentences commuted and why. I don’t see any reason to doubt it. So why is he having his sentences commuted? Because he has been...
That doesn’t pass Occam’s razor. Biden explained who is having their sentences commuted and why. I don’t see any reason to doubt it.
The 1,500 people had been serving long prison sentences that would have been shorter under today's laws and practices. They had been on home confinement since the COVID pandemic and Biden said they had successfully reintegrated into their communities.
So why is he having his sentences commuted? Because he has been moved to house arrest since 2020 on account of his low risk and high chance of mortality to COVID.
I would not expect Biden staffers to carefully pick through this list - the whole reason to pick that kind of category is that you don’t have to carefully pick through it.
There’s no other reason to it. Biden picked a criteria of prisoners - people who haven’t been in prison for the last 4 years and have had no violations in that period - and commuted their sentences. That happened to include someone that people don’t like. It happens.
President Biden on Thursday announced he is commuting the prison sentences for nearly 1,500 people and pardoning 39 others in what the White House said was the largest act of clemency in a single day in modern presidential history.
The 1,500 people had been serving long prison sentences that would have been shorter under today's laws and practices. They had been on home confinement since the COVID pandemic and Biden said they had successfully reintegrated into their communities.
The White House released brief biographies of the 39 pardoned individuals. Most committed non-violent drug offenses in their late teens and early 20s. Many served in the U.S. military and all are active in their communities, either through church or volunteer work — including helping others with addiction recovery and navigating life after incarceration.
Biden has also issued categorical pardons to people convicted under federal law of simple use or possession of marijuana, and to LGBTQ+ people who had been convicted because of the sexual orientation while serving in the military.
“Today, I am commuting the sentences of 37 of the 40 individuals on federal death row to life sentences without the possibility of parole. These commutations are consistent with the moratorium my administration has imposed on federal executions, in cases other than terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder.”
It means just three federal inmates are still facing execution. They are Dylann Roof, who carried out the 2015 racist slayings of nine Black members of Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina; 2013 Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; and Robert Bowers, who fatally shot 11 congregants at Pittsburgh’s Tree of life Synagogue in 2018, the deadliest antisemitic attack in U.S history.
Perhaps he will. This is a group of people whose sentences would have been shorter today; it doesn't mean he isn't going to commute any other sentences.
Perhaps he will. This is a group of people whose sentences would have been shorter today; it doesn't mean he isn't going to commute any other sentences.
Good, this is what the presidential power is supposed to be for and it probably could have gone further. I'm curious how many people are impacted by the blanket pardons.
Good, this is what the presidential power is supposed to be for and it probably could have gone further. I'm curious how many people are impacted by the blanket pardons.
While I think some of these are good, commuting the sentence of Michael Conahan, one of the judges in the Kids for Cash scandal, feels like a pretty big slap in the face.
It doesn’t feel right to me that he should get clemency for his own sentence when he is guilty of intentionally jailing children in order to enrich himself. He is escaping accountability by the very system that he used to punish and profit from kids, the majority of whom were undeserving of imprisonment in the first place.
I look at it like this, there will always be shitty people released by criminal justice reform and by things like pardons and commutations. If I let that stop me for advocating for reforms and reducing the our use of the prison system, I'm falling into the tough on crime trap.
He was sentenced in 2011, has been at home since 2020 if I understand that correctly and likely would have been due for parole shortly, because he was almost at 85% of his time served. (August 2026 was his previous release date).
He was not pardoned, just no longer costing the feds to keep him at his house or provide healthcare. The lack of true restorative justice isn't solved by continuing his sentence longer. It does make sense that the people Biden commuted that have been out of prison and at home since 2020 and haven't been arrested for violating those terms don't need to be in custody anymore. (I'm also wondering if Trump has said something about ending those at home confinements.)
EDIT: fixed a dumb autocorrect
I think it's reasonable enough for him to be released from all your above points, but it seems like terrible optics to go to bat for an almost universally hated person who seems like they already had one foot out the door anyways.
I don't know what metrics his team used when building the list, but I would hate to think someone who may really deserve it missed a "spot" over someone like this.
He was one of many inmates who were moved to house arrest due to their low risk profile (and high risk to the virus) during COVID and has been ever since. Biden commuted this class of prisoners to basically make their de facto reality (house arrest instead of prison) de jure.
It wasn’t a handpicked list or something, and the presidents pardoning power is unlimited, there isn’t a list with limited spots.
It seems like it was pretty much everyone or at least a large number of those who had been on covid home supervision for four years. I actually don't think that there were "slots" that he was taken from, and outside of the article linked at the top of this chain his name didn't even come up in the initial lists so he wasn't singled out.
I think I said that sometimes shitty people will get included in corrections in the system, and I think this is just one of those.
Do you think it’s likely he’d commit another crime? It doesn’t seem so, both because he’s old AF and because he’s never going to be a judge again even if he wanted to.
It should be about reform first and foremost and it seems fine to let an old man die in his own home.
Let me start by saying that I appreciate the perspective you and @DefinitelyNotAFae are trying to bring here, and it’s very possible that, as a teacher, this particular cases raises my emotional hackles in a way that’s counterproductive. I have a very hard time with people who mistreat kids. It makes me very angry, which isn’t a good lens for fairness.
On the other hand, I also think ignoring anger like that can sterilize certain situations in a way that’s also counterproductive by taking away the sharpness of a case and softening its harms.
I’m indifferent to his age, particularly because he was already pretty old when he committed his crimes.
I also can’t ignore the scope, either. Thousands of children were wrongly incarcerated as a result of his actions. The harm done to them and their families is real, and it occurred during a time when the kids were particularly developmentally vulnerable. I have no doubt that his actions fundamentally changed the trajectories of many of those kids’ lives for the worse.
Ultimately, though, in digging through my feelings about this, I think it comes down to the idea that I don’t think clemency for him advances any sort of justice, even when viewed through the lens of prison reform as a whole, because the “weapon” of his crime was specifically using the harms of that system against victims who were children. He, as a judge, was aware more than pretty much anyone else of how our system works. He had full knowledge of the risks to his own life and freedoms that he was undertaking by his criminal activity in the first place. Furthermore, he willingly used the injustices of that system against kids, and it wasn’t driven by a benign misunderstanding or a misplaced compassion to help these kids, but outright cold-blooded avarice.
Giving clemency to him for now being on the other side of a system that he personally weaponized, on the grounds that it’s unfair at large, doesn’t feel like justice to me. It honestly feels like a further injustice to his victims, because it feels like just another way the justice system is failing them specifically.
I understand the visceral reaction towards harm to kids. I'm stepping on my own right now fairly hard, but I'm not coming from an unemotional place. I've worked with people on parole and seen the deep harms of our prison system. And thus have (as a work in progress) developed strong ethical beliefs about incarcerating people. My anti-carceral response comes from a strong place of empathy as much as my anger at him does
This man did horrible things, but I don't think incarcerating him further advances justice more than the commuting of his sentence. The only things that would advance justice, to me, would be him having the internal moral learning to understand how horrible the things he did were, some way to restore the harms done to the children, and deconstructing the entire system (or at least fixing the gaps that allowed this to happen, but I can dream). Maybe his time in prison helped him realize his wrongs, but if not, it certainly won't now. Staying in prison won't restore anything to those harmed and it won't fix the system. And it's damn hypocritical of me to insist he stay in the system if I think the system is busted and others shouldn't be in there.
Basically I think his incarceration, at the least at this point, only serves justice in the fucked up sense that American society seems to keep using the word. There's very little just about any of it.
And if it comes down to this one dude is the cost of 1499 other commutations, I'd gladly pay it. I'd rather a hundred guilty set free than one innocent imprisoned after all.
But does that make anyone’s life better for him to be in prison rather than house arrest? If nothing else, the victims and their parents tax money is going towards housing and feeding him in prison.
It seems the only reason to keep him in prison is from a punitive, vengeance once, which seems by far the weakest reason to keep someone in prison.
My issue isn’t with him being in prison versus house arrest; it’s with the symbolic action of commuting his sentence.
I think doing that is a further harm to his victims, so I genuinely do believe that having him serve out his full sentence would be better for them.
For the victims arguably yeah
I don't think I understand that argument.
Not sure what's not to understand. Victims, in general, feel better if the people who victimized them are still in prison. This is especially true in crimes that take advantage of their victims, like selling them into prison.
Fwiw this isn't my experience in working with victims. But I don't know the statistics.
I mean...i'm not sure what area you're working with them, but it somewhat depends on the crime. Domestic abuse victims absolutely prefer their abusers be in jail, as is the case is almost all violent crime.
It's a little weirder for crimes like this where yes, that judge probably isn't going to sell the same kid into prison twice, but even then yes generally victims have a vision of "What's fair" for the crime that was committed against them and are upset should they be released "early".
I am in a different field now, but it was child victims in a therapeutic environment.
I went looking for stats, because personal experiences aren't going to cut it.
(pdf ) Alliance for Safety and Justice 2016
60% of victims wanted shorter sentences and more spending on prevention and rehabilitation.
"By a margin of 3 to 1, victims preferred holding people accountable though options beyond prison"
Similar info is shared in this narrative Safety and Justice Challenge - Criminal Justice Reform - Victims POV from 2022
I'll add more if I find it, it's not the easiest search.
This is the same group that published the 2016 report, which seems to fly in the face of a lot of what I saw when I was last looking into this in the 04-10 era, but I'm also having a hell of a time finding any details on their report, just the summary.
I suspect part of this is because violent crime is a VERY wide net and the difference between abuse victim and someone who was robbed is pretty large when you get to actual desires. I can't find any details though to confirm what they're looking at or where they got it from, which makes me suspicious.
They do share a summary of the methods at the end but it's more about how they sampled than the specifics of what crimes people were victims of. Individual victim experiences vary a lot, I found a smaller study of about 40 victims who spoke with their offenders and certainly some felt things were "too easy" on them and it wasn't enough punishment. Others felt that incarceration was too severe or for too long of a time. There's no one true "all victims feel this way."
There are days I wish the people who harmed me burn in the heart of a sun forever, and days where I want to care nothing about them and days where I want them to find some sort of peace, I'm sure many victims experience a back and forth through all of that as well.
But it is frustrating to provide some data and have it be sort of dismissed. This also doesn't really address whether the impact on the victims should be one of the primary considerations in things like sentencing. Or if like the trial itself it's about crimes against the state and thus the state outcomes. There's not a settled answer on this either with different systems using different things for different crimes. Without polling this guy's and every person's specific victims we can't know their specific answers.
I'm not trying to exactly dismiss the data but I am always suspicious of any study that's "summarized" in such a way and doesn't provide enough detail on methodology. Especially when you basically linked to it twice as two seperate references.
Not that I think you're trying to mislead me, but I do think that when there's only one poorly defined study being cited all over the place, things are often less accurate than one might hope. I'm extremely hesitant when you can't just look at the underlying data, which ought to be published somewhere but I can't seem to find anything but this infographic.
I didn't realize the second paper I linked only drew from the same study, and I appreciated you pointing it out.
But I haven't nailed down the right keywords to find more data. I scrolled through a few articles on Google scholar but there's a limit to how much academic research I can dig through with a day job and a pending root canal. I'm happy to look at any data you can find to the contrary. Our personal experiences differ so I think research is the next best step or agreeing that victims differ and that we can't know the specific feelings of these victims without a poll so moving on from there.
Please feel free to doubt the data I linked, but point me to something else that is some sort of large study of victims' beliefs instead.
Traditionally this is all done with census bureau data, so probably this one https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/ncvs
I went through the entire 2023 questionnaire and it's beefy so I could have missed it, but I didn't see questions about victims opinions about incarceration or other parts of the system for offenders.
This is a part of the issue and why I'd like to see the data collected from the 2016 study. The last time I looked at this kind of data it required a ton of combining from different sources to even get close to something like this.
Supposedly the 2016 study has done their own survey on such a thing, but the fact they don't actually appear to provide the results anywhere makes me suspect (i'd expect it to be paywalled but I can't even find that).
Unfortunately I do not have the time to do such a deep dive these days, as it's a hell of a lot more than just some engine searches.
To be clear I'm not saying i'm 100% right here. It's very possible the 2016 data sheds much better light on the subject and should be referenced, but without being able to dive into that, and with the only other alternative being a very lengthy dive into multiple census sources, I can't do much else.
They hired a polling company to do the survey, so it's not an academic study but more like a political poll. If we're going to doubt whether it happened, I suppose we should doubt everything. But I've poked around and don't believe the dataset has been made public or that it's been repeated.
I understand holding claims to high standard, I only ask you do the same to your own claims. From my perspective, I shared my experience and you shared yours, so I went looking for data and found what I provided to you. You've criticized that data, fair enough, but provided nothing in return, and ceded at best that you might not be 100% right, but also some implication that my data is outright falsified.
At least I brought something that addressed the topic and to the best of my knowledge and ability is valid even if only due to the reputation of the org that performed the survey? Essentially it feels that conversation on this is impossible by these standards. I'm disappointed but will let the thread die.
Is there evidence for that, or is it an assumption?
If the government is at all concerned about the population having any faith in the justice system, this is completely counterproductive and only serves to further weaken the justice system's reputation.
Why? It shows how it’s becoming less punitive and more pragmatic. The US is well known for over-jailing and trimming inmates who do not need to be in prison (and haven’t been for 4 years) from prison seems like a positive sign for the criminal justice system.
Sure, we certainly over-jail on average, but this just comes off as another rich/politically connected elite getting off much easier than they should. The man is responsible for the equivalent of human trafficking and slavery of thousands. We've already got an incoming president and his rich buddies getting away with crimes that would get a normal person the death penalty. The wealthy and powerful already increasingly face no consequences for their absolutely awful actions, and it's getting worse every day, hence the recent support for vigilantism. This just feeds into that.
There’s no reason to believe there’s any underhanded dealings. The ex-judge just happened to be in a class of semi-released non-violent criminals that Biden is commuting to reduce the strain on the prison system.
Maybe not, but it still feeds into that perception. Optics matter. This is one of the worst times to show that abusing your position in the legal system and ruining the lives of hundreds or thousands doesn't result in real consequences, and even if you do face consequences, you might just get pardoned by the president anyway. I would also disagree with this being non-violent - just because he didn't do the dirty work of physically trapping people himself doesn't mean he's not responsible for violence towards his numerous victims.
I get it's part of an overall set of pardons, but it still is contributing to the death of the justice system and any semblance of the law being impartial. I guess we're already past that point, though, so maybe it doesn't actually matter. If we're at that point, fuck it, pardon everyone.
That’s not the point of the “violence” criteria - it’s that it’s unlikely to reoccur. Anyone can go beat someone with a bat or shoot them with a bullet.
The criminal in this case can’t exactly just become a judge again and repeat his crimes. There’s no reason, given his history, to believe that he’d commit other crimes.
Maybe idiots will misconstrue this in dumb ways, but I don’t think it’s in any way an inherently partial or biased or corrupt use of clemency.
By that logic, should we simply never punish old people? I get the argument about reform, but it seems like it entirely forgets about deterrence. This man is a monster who ruined so many lives — I can’t see a justification for clemency. Also, he was already going to die in his own home -- he was on house arrest.
Everything we know about prevention shows that the likelihood of being caught and punished is a far more important factor than the severity of the punishment if you get caught, above a certain threshold. We should be focusing on rooting out more schemes like this one.
Depending on one's view of prison no one should be incarcerated without there being a current risk to society. But he served over 13 years of an 18 year term. I don't think that inherently lacks deterrence if that is one's goal.
Even 18 years seems trivial in comparison to the thousands of children who he and Ciavarella illegally imprisoned. It's hard to really grasp the scale of this -- we're talking about imprisoning thousands of children. And where's the justice for Edward Kenzakoski, who committed suicide after being sentenced by these corrupt judges?
Also, he didn't even really serve 13 years in prison. He served 9 years, and then was transferred to house arrest. Now he's just free.
Sure it does, but his incarceration does little to nothing to make those children whole, to make the community safer or to change him as a person. That leaves deterrence and punishment. These are some of the worst reasons for using incarceration in my opinion.
But if there are a bunch more people signing up for just 9 years of prison and 4 of home confinement to abuse their positions, I'll accept that I'm wrong. Also, home confinement is being in custody, it is kinder than prison, but it's not freedom. They don't get "wander around town" hours they get to leave for work (seems unlikely in his case) and doctor's appointments on top of that. They were not going to put him back in prison as the BoP said anyone at home due to COVID would stay home unless they violated the terms (which is usually not just a parole violation but an actual felony escape charge with new prison time).
We don't do restorative justice here and because of that it just really leaves punishment on the table. Which means there is no amount that will ever feel satisfying. And if I believe in not locking kids up in prison (for the actual reasons our system says they should be rather than the specific corruption in this case) and not locking other people up who aren't a danger to the community, I have to be consistent and not want him locked up either. He sucks. But his incarceration doesn't fix theirs. I don't want to perpetuate our broken system out of vengenace.
Yeah, I agree with you. I should be more of an abolitionist considering how dehumanizing our prison system is, but he caused so much harm and suffering I cannot agree with shortening his sentence. The harm he did is beyond the pale, and I feel like it should be treated like a violent crime, not to be pardoned.
It’s absolutely a violent crime. How much abuse did those thousands of children endure in those prisons?
The layer of indirection shouldn’t matter here. If he kidnapped 2,300 children and kept them in his basement he would never see the light of day. Instead, using the state’s security apparatus to do it, should be considered an aggravating circumstance rather than mitigating it.
If he had personally kidnapped children, he would likely still be capable of doing so and would be a risk to the community. As he no longer has the power to incarcerate children he's most likely not a danger to any more children. Once again, this is all getting into whether the time in prison is punishment or serves another purpose. If just punishment then I don't see any amount of time that is sufficient and therefore it really doesn't matter if he served the full 17 .5 years or not because it still would be enough. It wouldn't matter how many aggravating factors you laid on top of it.
I think there's a false dichotomy there. Time in prison serves multiple purposes. According to most models:
There are some crimes that are of such vast scale that retribution needs to be addressed, whether they are physically capable of committing that crime again or not.
I don't agree that it's a false dichotomy. I'm saying it raises the question of whether retribution should even be on the list. Especially if it becomes the only reason someone is incarcerated, particularly since our system does not do rehabilitation. I referenced the other reasons you listed here in another comment.
Your last sentence is a philosophical opinion but not necessarily a fact. I don't think punishment/retribution is particularly useful. I mean we could just kill the man if he needs punishment that badly.
Sure, it’s not proportional to the suffering he caused, but we don’t live in ancient Babylon, it’s not about an eye for an eye.
I mean, being old is one of the main reasons people get parole, so yeah. Obviously it does vary somewhat by circumstance, but in this case it seems fine.
This is a really off-putting take for a man who literally sent more than 2,300 potentially innocent children to rot in institutional prisons for money.
He also "pardoned" Rita Crundwell who embezzled 60~ million dollars from her small town and crippled it to fund her horse addiction (she owned 400+ horses at the time of her arrest.)
Another person who got off was Eric Bloom "the onetime leader of a Northbrook management firm who defrauded investors of more than $665 million." Seems like an awful lot of rich and powerful people getting out of their consequences, as per usual I guess.
There are some wild takes going on in this thread right now, I can't help but imagine what kind of response this would have gotten on Tildes if the headline was "Trump pardons corrupt rich and powerful people" instead of Biden. (Which is ironic because its almost certainly going to happen in 2025)
I would certainly feel differently if those people had specifically been given pardons and not as a group that also included a lot of non-rich, non-powerful people.
I'm confused why it was completely necessary to have them be grouped together... If the White house has the time to go through and create sappy PR-bait biographies for several dozen of the deserving pardons, they don't have the time to have at least 1 or 2 guys going through the cases to make sure they don't pardon several ridiculously corrupt criminals? I guess we have to take the bad with the good.
Honestly just 1 glance at the case file for "guy who wrongly imprisoned 2300+ children for money" should have been enough to exclude him from the list of the "many who served in the U.S. military and all are active in their communities, either through church or volunteer work."
Especially after giving this statement about the act:
Which heavily implies that these cases were all reviewed individually, when obviously they were not (or else that raises even more questions) This is all on the top of the blanket pardon he gave to his own son earlier this month, so concerns about corruption are definitely on people's minds.
Do we really think this old dude paid Biden for this? If so, he didn't spring for the "pardon" level? He got ripped off.
These people all* did crimes. They all hurt people. Probably every one could have objections.
For me this is consistent with prison reform. Even shitty people will benefit from it. But society as a whole is probably better for these people not being in custody. We'll never stop fixating on being "tough on crime" if reform is consistently sidelined by "except this guy" and "oh no she actually deserves it*
Which means we probably will never end it. I've worked for a private prison company, albeit in re-entry. I've watched people wish prison rape on someone for shoplifting. It's common enough that SpongeBob has made prison rape jokes. And any time we make a step towards trying to fix things, we as a society bail on it immediately if there's the smallest flaw.
*Obviously some may be innocent and wrongfully convicted. I have no way to know who.
The article says that a large portion of them were non-violent drug related offenses. I fully support commuting those charges because they're almost always actual victimless crimes.
I don't support clemency for the very people who are responsible for making the system as broken as it is today, and I'm allowed to be upset that it happened.
Just because I can't fix an issue doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be angry and upset when it happens and comment on how unfair and frustrating it is.
Honestly? Who knows. I will say I find it infinitely more likely that this man among many of his peers has gotten much better treatment by the justice system in general than the thousands of children whose lives he destroyed. I suppose it's just a coincidence it just so happens to be a rich white influential corrupt ex-judge who gets to be part of this sudden act of mercy and altruism by the US government. Not to mention he was already only on house arrest, which is insanely lenient given how big of a monster he was. It's truly mind-boggling that anyone would be ok with this guy walking free no matter how old he is.
You're perfectly allowed to be upset. You don't have to agree with me. While I agree with you on drug offenses, I am sure there are others who would feel that drug dealers destroy lives as much as or more than he did, since their products can kill. That's what I mean, that every person on this list probably has someone feeling as strongly about their release as you do.
I mean I think that he probably was in minimum security for example because we classify "security levels" generally by violence. And affluent white men tend to be convicted of white collar felonies at higher rates. And I think he was sent home on house arrest during COVID (note that this was not his original sentence but a 2020 thing to prevent deaths in prison) due to that security status combined with his age. Those things, that privilege, absolutely played a part in why he's on this list. Same with some woman who ripped off a bunch of money from a small city near me who's also on the "fuck this list" for local people. But I do think "corruption/bribery" as the reason falls into conspiracy theories in absence of specific evidence.
I don't want people in prison at all whenever possible so I guess be mindboggled by me. I want there to be some restorative justice aspect here but our system doesn't have that or rehabilitation on its list. He cannot hurt anyone else at this point. Hell, this way his previous victims can go kick his ass if they want, if we're doing retribution. Locking people in small rooms in dangerous environments until they're unable to function outside of it, guarded by equally institutionalized COs, is not how I think we end the cycles we're caught in. It's not like this exception to the rules fixes the system, but it's better than 1500 people remaining in custody.
Oh I completely misjudged this, I thought it meant like possession charges (aka getting caught with weed or something similar) is that not the case? I would agree that drug dealers definitely have a little more responsibility for suffering if that's the case, but I think it also matters what drug is was so that context is important to me. Something like weed or LSD or mushrooms isn't nearly as damaging as fent or heroin.
This is definitely a fair take, the prison system in the US and in the wider world is definitely broken and inhumane, I don't know if I'm as far down the list as "no prisons at all" but I am definitely an advocate for less prisons. But I imagine the 2300+ kids whose lives got ruined by this monster would feel a lot better if he actually got thrown in jail like they were instead of serving out the rest his sentence in a cushy house arrest situation and then being let off. It must feel like complete shit to see that guy get off.
I'm not going through a list but being in federal prison on felony drug charges will include a wide range of people due to quantity of drugs, type of drugs, and where they got caught making it federal jurisdiction. I could be a user still responsible for the deaths of others if my friend who I shared with died. The family of someone deep in addiction may feel that the financial and emotional ruin to their lives is also worth someone "rotting in jail" forever. There's no magic "no one could possibly be harmed" sort of crime category. Individual instances, sure, but lots of things have knock-on effects.
Maybe, I can't speak for them, but there's a reason why the victims aren't the judge, jury and executioner. That system would be crueler overall I think, not kinder. Though there have been plenty of times where the flip side is true and victims or their families have advocated for mercy when the general public has demanded blood. Society makes these calls because it impacts so many more people than just the direct victims (the number of people victimized by a murder includes the people that have to clean up afterwards, and the police and medical personnel, and the witnesses and the people who found the body, and so on.). Some systems let victims give statements but they're not binding.
I want to be clear, that it's not that I don't care about the harm he did. But I've worked with literal murderers. Human dignity, and mercy, and all the things, should not be limited to only the people we like.
Those were two separate categories. 39 people were pardoned - they are no longer criminals at all. For these, their backgrounds were detailed.
The rest merely had their sentences commuted. They are still criminals, just out of prison. Notice how this category was carefully picked to be safe - everyone who had their sentence commuted was already out of prison since 2020.
From just the difference in magnitude - 40 vs over 1000 - you can see which list had scrutiny applied and which list didn’t.
As the top comment notes:
He's served his sentence for what he's done. Keeping him jailed basically just satisfies our monkey brain desire for revenge.
But... he hasn't served his sentence? I mean, isn't that the whole point here, that he is not going to serve his sentence? I don't understand what you mean.
He has served the number of years that his sentence would merit if he were sentenced today. I like when bad guys have bad things happen to them too, but I like living in a society that isn't just based on maximizing revenge even more.
Disclaimer: I have absolutely zero objective knowledge as to the reason for this. What follows is simply educated conjecture.
My best guess would be some backroom politics tit-for-tat. In order to do something else, or get something else done, this was the price or part of the price. Again, just my best guess.
That doesn’t pass Occam’s razor. Biden explained who is having their sentences commuted and why. I don’t see any reason to doubt it.
So why is he having his sentences commuted? Because he has been moved to house arrest since 2020 on account of his low risk and high chance of mortality to COVID.
I would not expect Biden staffers to carefully pick through this list - the whole reason to pick that kind of category is that you don’t have to carefully pick through it.
There’s no other reason to it. Biden picked a criteria of prisoners - people who haven’t been in prison for the last 4 years and have had no violations in that period - and commuted their sentences. That happened to include someone that people don’t like. It happens.
Logical - the simpler solution that involves fewer assumptions. Ok, I'll buy it as the most likely explanation.
If only he'd commute the death sentences now… He literally has nothing to lose anymore, so fuck it, why not?
https://apnews.com/article/biden-death-row-commutations-trump-executions-f67b5e04453cd1aa6383c516bc14f300
Alright! Now we're talkin'.
Perhaps he will. This is a group of people whose sentences would have been shorter today; it doesn't mean he isn't going to commute any other sentences.
Good, this is what the presidential power is supposed to be for and it probably could have gone further. I'm curious how many people are impacted by the blanket pardons.