As a result, thousands of people will serve longer prison terms.
  • Willie
    10•8 months ago

    So I looked it up, and the law appears to be worded like this:

    ‘‘(1) the defendant does not have—
    ‘‘(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
    ‘‘(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
    ‘‘© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

    So let’s simplify this into English. Because the header says that “The defendant does not have” and then has subsections, we will append that idea to the start of each subsection.

    The defendant doesn’t have more than four crime points

    and

    The defendant doesn’t have a 3 point offense

    and

    The defendant doesn’t have a violent 2 point offense.

    Simplifying it down like this makes it seem like the way it is written is the more strict way the supreme court decided on. It sounds like the supreme court is correct in this case, but they don’t know why they’re correct, since their reason is all wrong.

      • Willie
        2•8 months ago

        While there’s no ‘and’ after ‘(A)’, it appears that’s the standard format for a list like this. Every list of x, y, and z in this bill is written in the same way. It seems like it’s supposed to be written like you would a list you give in English. There’s a list of conditions under which a prisoner can be transferred to a prison closer to their home when near release time, and the conditions are listed in the same exact way.

        ‘‘(2) TRANSFER TO INSTITUTION CLOSER TO RELEASE RESIDENCE.—A prisoner who is successfully participating in an evidence-based recidivism reduction program shall be considered by the Bureau of Prisons for placement in a facility closer to the prisoner’s release residence upon request from the prisoner and subject to—
        ‘‘(A) bed availability at the transfer facility;
        ‘‘(B) the prisoner’s security designation; and
        ‘‘© the recommendation from the warden of the prison at which the prisoner is incarcerated at the time of making the request.

        There’s no way they will allow you to transfer to a prison that has no space for you, so long as you can fulfill both B and C, it’d be physically impossible! It’s clear they intend for you to meet all 3 requirements, just like in the segment being discussed by the supreme court in the article. There’s also like a seven item list of responsibilities the Attorney General has in the bill too, formatted with the same (A); (B); ©; … (G); and (H) format. And there’s no way they let the dude just pick which task from the list he’s responsible for. Once you become familiar with the bill’s format, it’s extremely clear how this is supposed to work.

        I feel like that specific issue is pretty cut and dry, but that’s just me.