• @AbidanYre
      link
      English
      -11 month ago

      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.

        • @AbidanYre
          link
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]OP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 month ago

            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.

            • @AbidanYre
              link
              English
              -1
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]OP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                3
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                You realize the money printing department and the releasing people from prison department aren’t the same, right?

                I’m trying to guess what your reason for thinking the US can’t do something is because you wont say.

                Having a lot of people and having a lot of people qualified to individually examine 135k federal cases are two different things.

                There are plenty of qualified people.

                You say it can be done, I disagree. It doesn’t seem like there’s much more to be said.

                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