so seeds inside of that court, you do not see what is happening. all you see is what we as journalists who do get to be in there right about. i think it is a tough case to make. increasingly more people are seeking to have the court open. congress does the same thing. congress has been televised for years. the loss come crumbling down and court,uld not with the too. you may see a bigger push with more justices named to the court. more justices will warm to the idea of doing that. host: any current justices one to the idea of the ninth? not really. even justices sotomayor and kagan said that hearings in the courtroom would be ok, but you opinion. back on that they are largely unanimously against and as long as that is the case, we will not see any change in that policy. host: our guest covers the supreme court for the "boston herald."

boston herald.com is where you would find her writings. kimberly atkins is the guest. thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will go back to the topic of we engaged in the first 45 minutes and that is the release of the nonviolent offenders between the second and we will talk about the larger --ect of sensitive scenes sentencing. julie stewart is our guest from the families against mandatory minims. plus, why obama isn't any money to go to charter schools. collins will be on later on the program. live from the montgomery county correctional facility as we look at the systems and one jill's efforts to reintegrate the community through jobs training and mental abuse counseling. chatted at the montgomery county correctional facility and we talked about the

workforce develop a program that is available to inmates. [video clip] >> there is a job seeking assistance program for the inmates that are housed here. we are one the first in the country to the house behind the jail. we are not the only one. what we found is the needs of offenders who are looking for work differs from the mainstream population. that is why we are here. the earlier we can start preparing for them, the more likely they are to get employment. we began eight months before their release. do is go to the units and recruitment. this is a voluntary program. you can come and sign up to come to our programs. what we do is we actually go to the units and we tell the , our soon-to-be customers, what is available here and what things they can do. it is eight months or less on the sentence. it cannot be pretrial. they cannot have a detainer and

another jurisdiction. those of the individuals eligible for our program. the program itself consists of a 16 week curriculum. there are six weeks of job readiness, six weeks of job search, and four weeks of personal development. we try to do everything. our goal in here is to get them job ready and life ready. >> many did not have as much work experience and do not have previous legal work experience. theirave to talk about charges. when i go to an interview, we do not have to explain that i have this criminal record. we spend a lot of time helping them prepare to talk about that. and feel comfortable talking about that. additionally, sometimes the educational level is not as high as your traditional job seeker. and a lot of it is confidence. we prepare them on how to go assert themselves and ensure to an employer that i could do the job. >> when the customers come down and see us, they work with us for a number of months. but it is given them to actually have individuals come from the

community and work with them so that they can get a feel for different personalities, individuals who they can see are willing to help them. it is important for the community to come in and see what we are dealing with. because sometimes this can be a scary environment, see -- so yoully will automatically will be afraid to deal with ex offenders could being that you can come in and see that this is a person here, they made a mistake, but now they are working towards an opportunity to be a better tax paying citizen. so that is the benefit of individuals coming from the outside. several guests will be part of that special program that you can see tomorrow on c-span, including an overview of the corrections department featuring the head of the person of that department, robert greene. and then athena morrow who deals with mental health issues appeared that is tomorrow on

c-span at 7:30 a.m.. joining us now is julia stewar d, here to talk about the decision of the obama administration to release 6000 nonviolent prisoners vendors. could you give us a history of this release taking place? importanthink it is to clarify that it is not the obama administration releasing that is something present obama is opening the prison doors and a couple days and letting 6000 people out. it is the u.s. sentencing commission, which is in independent agency a part of the department of justice. there are seven commissioners on dy and confirmed by the senate. technically, they a part of the administration, but they overlap with multiple administrations and periods of time on commission can go for six years. is not always all the obama administration commissioners who make the decision.

i'm clarifying that because there is a lot of misunderstanding about how president obama is leading 6000 people out. that's not quite true. the u.s. sentencing commission in 2014 voted to drop drug sentencing guidelines by two levels, which basically means they're going to shorten the drug sentences by about 11 months. that was passed going forward. anyone coming into the system after november 1, 2014 would get a slightly shorter sentence for a drug offense. to make itd also retroactive in the summer of 2014 and that would apply to the people currently in prison that would qualify under the criteria of drug offenses and all these different pieces. so that was about 46,000 people that were to be eligible to apply for earlier released under this retroactive sentencing guidelines. not everybody got it. about 16,000 prisoners have got an early release, but they are not coming out at once.

the 6000 number iste the aggregated. in the last year, they had in processing the release. released from their sins as of november 1, but they are actually in the community, most of them up until today. we have people who have already contacted us, saying i'm in my halfway house and gotten my home. nothing's going on for months. ,ost: what events led to that aside from the specific work of the sentencing commission? what kind of led to where we are at now today? guest: i have been working this issue for 25 years. i have seen a real ship. there was an early interest in the 1990's to sort of correct the most extreme sentences. and then there was this dead. of about 10 years fo. in the last five years, there

has been a real interest in reducing our prison population and trying to acknowledge that we have put people in prison for a very long time who need to be punish as their broken a law, but they have been getting excessively long punishments. the sentencing commission historically has tweaked the sentencing guidelines to make sentences fair for all kinds of prisoners. in 1994, they made changes to marijuana policy and made it retroactive and lsd policy and made it retroactive. this is not me. in 2000 seven, they made changes to crack cocaine policy and made it retroactive. an effort ton correct the excesses of the sentencing laws that have impacted literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country. host: for the 6000 we spoke of earlier, are these people arrested for using drugs, selling drugs? who qualifies in that group? guest: using and selling jugs. i'm not trying to whitewash this. this is not a bunch of choirboys who walked into prison with a

joint and got 20 years. that does not happen although there are people who believe it does. these are people who are engaged andrug activity -- the sale purchase of drugs. these are people that broken a law, there's no doubt about that. they are getting sentences that are way, way more severe generally then is sufficient to punish them in a way that deters them from doing this again. there are principles of punishment that involve things like not punishing someone more than is necessary for them to get the message for public safety. many of these sentences exceed that. host: if you want to ask questions about what we have talked about, the 6000 and others that will be released under this effort, here's your chance to call in and ask our guests questions. for for those with the experience. (202) 748-8001 for law enforcement.

our guest is the president and founder of families against minimum sentences. how to start? guest: as in fact when my growingwas arrested for marijuana. he was arrested in washington state, which was ironic because its legal there now. i was stunned that he was going to prison for five years for his first offense. i thought it did not make any sense in that members of congress really do not know what they had done when they created these mandatory sentences and that maybe if we show them what kind of people were going to prison and we lobbied them to say that you can have effective punishment with less time that they would change laws. it was a bit naive, but i did not have any policy experience before. on the other hand, it works pretty quickly and that congress 1994 something called the safety valve, which allows judges to have more discretion in certain cases lecture cases.

that affects about one of 5% of those going into prison each year for drug offenses her. it was a crusade based on my own personal experience and i find that over the two decades of doing this, most people come when they know someone who has gone to prison. host: correct me if i'm wrong -- congress has set the minimum and maximum sentences, the commission did not decide on the guidelines. is that correct? guest: yes. it's confusing, but there is a mandatory check passed by congress and they are generally five-10 years and sometimes 20 years and that is the floor of the sentence. the judge cannot go below that. alsoentencing commission create sentences for all crimes, not just drug offenses. have a general starting point for the judge and i can go up or down depending on circumstances. the guidelines which were mandatory when i first started doing this became advisory in 2007. -- judgess are still

are still got it by that hit 80% of the time they follow the guidelines, but the mandatory minimums they cannot get below. host: how can we see long sentences for say simple drug uses? is misappliedimum here. they are large sentences, but is the minimum the judge can give. and my brother's case, he had over 100 marijuana plants. that triggered a five year minimum sentence. if he had over 1000 marijuana plants, it would have triggered a 10 year minimum sentence that the judge could not have gone below. means. what the minimum it is not a small number. that is the minimum amount of time that the judge can give you host. host: our first call is from paul in rhode island. go ahead. caller: good morning. how theu explain privatization of prisons systems and the for-profit prison has influenced the

mandatory sinc sentencing? guest: i do not think that private prisons have had any impact on sentencing law. notink that certainly it is -- it does not feel good to think that people are making money off of someone else's misery. ,nd there is a lobby to support especially in the past, to support private prisons. i think they are not having a great deal of influence on sentencing law. host: that was paul. let us hear from steve in california, san diego. caller: good morning. i like to know what percentage of these ex-cons will commit crimes in our communities within a year. thank you. there are statistics and it's about 50%, maybe a little less come up 47% will commit a crime within the first year. at the end of the years, it's about 66% that will commit a crime. to me, that speaks very

differently -- deeply to have failed a prison policies are. if we are trying to actually correct people -- these are called department of corrections -- we should be doing a lot more with why we have them literally in a captive audience to help them address anger management and decision-making and provide some skills training. we do very little once people are in prison to actually help them prepare to reenter and not go back to the world that they were familiar with. and this particular case with the 6000 that are coming out, they are all nonviolent drug offenders could these are people who have not committed violent crimes. a third of them are going to be deported, may be accorded of them will be deported. there are a lot of different pieces to this, but there will be some number that will commit more crimes, absolutely. host: a columnist talked about the prison release in a recent column and she said this, "amongst the 50% of nonviolent federal drug offenders, it is

difficult to know how many were arrested for violent crime and plea bargain to a lesser offense. nor do we have good data on how many were previously convicted of a violent crime. bureau of justice statistics study found that 95% of those who served time in state prisons for nonviolent crimes had a proceeding criminal history." guest: if they were violent, a prosecutor would not agree to leave them down to anything that did not make sure that they survey a lot of time behind bars. i think that is argument commonly use. controlors basically sentencing today. if the prosecutor believes that person is truly violent, they will keep them in prison for a long time if they are allowing them to flee down, they do not think they're much of it but to the public. host: cairo from michigan. you are on that. caller: thank you for having me on. my husband is a criminal and civil litigator. i like to know that out of the 6000 people being released from

prison, how many of them have felonies on the record? they're basically dead in the water there. my husband fights right to the debt to keep a felony off of someone's record. in the state of michigan, they have already done away with the .inimum sentences and the judges are giving them even more time. my husband is a really great attorney and he does usually get them really good deals. he feels that if you do have a felony on your record that if you do not canada car for five years, the felony should come off. it would at least give you a chance at life. with that felony on your record, you do not have a life. you are dead in the water. i would like your opinion on the 6000 coming out. how many will have felonies on the records? and we should work harder, because my husband works as hard as he can, to make a good deal and keep it down to a minimum, but to keep that felony off the

record. thank you very much. guest: everyone of these people will have a felony on the record. they are felons. they spent more than a year in prison and it's a felony offense. it is hard and that is part of the trouble with readjusting. you have the burden of trying to find a job when you have been in prison for 10 or 20 years. technology has just passed you by and your skill set is so passed and you have a felony on your back. took recently decided to ban the box, which is a big movement about having companies not check whether you are selling on your application to look at you straight up as an individual competing for this job. host: that is the cook brother industries? actly. execut koch is the largest to do that. i think it's really great. it's hard to get a job with a felony record. i brother is a felon with five

years in prison. when he came out, he moved to virginia and live with me. he won to get into real estate. he took all the real estate courses and pass them. you want to get his license and the state of virginia would not license him because he was a felon. he went and petitioned enrichment to the board of realtors and they said, sorry, we are not going to give you a real estate license because you are a felon. to me, that sets up barriers to people who are trying to reenter and get on with their lives and be productive citizens. i think there's a great idea that if you have not commit another crime after five years or 10 years that the felony could be expunged, but that is just not realistic in the federal system. federal the portion and halfway homes, what is being done to help them prepare for life? guest: halfway houses are bufferd to provide the between prison and freedom. i think some of them do a good job and some of them really are just a holding cell until the person can get the home confinement.

they try to get them jobs. it's how to help them when some skills like how to write a resume and things like that. they do something, but it's a d of maybe six months and the halfway house, where there have been imprisoned for decades they could've been taking skills training and anger management and behavioral modification classes in prison. host: from dover, delaware, brandon is next up. hello. caller: how are you doing today? i have a couple of commas i want to make. dofirst comment was, yes, i agree with the other ladies that if you take away the mandatory minimums that they will not do anything but start giving people want time. ok, with what the minimum was. number 2 -- i want to say this will quick to c-span. you just have a million man march this weekend and every big event that c-span has covered, they always talk about it that next day or that monday.

so i was wondering why ya was not talking about the million man march today? host: we engaged in that topic yesterday. in fact, you can see portions of the march on c-span3. caller: i was watching c-span yesterday. wasn't nobody talking about it. host: we did a question on it actually. we did cover it, but you can take the portion of the question directed to you. were directly involved in the michigan mandatory minimums in 1998 and getting rid of them. role for theght first offense of cocaine and heroin of 650 grams. we managed to get that reduce so they can get out of prison depending on prior circumstances. i would argue that when a mandatory minimum is a move that a judge has a lot more discretion to the judges are the ones who should have that discussion. prosecutors control sentencing

by charging decisions. if they charge my brother with 100 marijuana plants, that triggered a five year mandatory minimum. if there were no mandatory minimus, they could charge you with 100 marijuana plants and a judge would have a guideline that starts at 50 months, but i think because it is your first offense or whatever, i will give you 36 months. that is what judges can do when there's no mandatory minimum. minimum is great with the hard floor where the judge knows the most about the person. that is what is so frustrating to me with this whole concept of mandatory sentences for legislators sitting in the hallowed halls of congress or state legislative buildings around the country are saying, based on this amount of drugs, it should be the sentence. we are determining the prison sentence based on one factor -- drugs -- which does not necessarily reflect the culpability of the defendant. iny could be a courier bring the drugs from texas to california. they getting paid five hundred

dollars to drive the truck and they do not know how many jugs on the back of it. when they are resting, their health of the entire amount of drugs and sends accordingly. host: greg from north carolina, thanks for holding. you are next. .aller: thank you, c-span to let all these is just and to society another one of obama's boneheaded ideas. now look, that example that you just gave about somebody driving dope from one place to another and get stop and he does not know how much dope is on the and he should not be responsible for all of it is outrageous. america should rise up and say enough is enough. streetsonvicts on the of big cities in america is not

going to work. let me ask you this. the recidivism rate is the same. when they get picked up and taken back to prison, how much time of the going to serve? are they going to revert back to the original sends a pat them on the button turn them loose? guest: first of all, i would like to address whatever number you want. everyone is going to get out of prison at one point. the only people who do not get a prison are serving life without parole. to say that we are letting these people out on the street, they're coming out anyway. the average sentence reduction is two years. maybe they're giving out two years earlier than they otherwise would have. arrested again, they will be convicted for the new crime. they will get a new sentence that has nothing to do with their old sons. it will be worse because they have a prior now so it would be a harsher sentence. "ost: "the new york times

made the point that one in six on every year release from prison. guest: it's not that these people would not come out. they're just coming out a little bit earlier. sentencergue that the they should have gotten in the first place is probably still too high. they're not the same people they went in as either. dana bowerman women as a mess at ago or 17 years ago. she is giving two years off of her sentence. instead of 19 and a half years, she is coming out in 17 a half years. she is no longer a meth addict and she is 44 years old. she will probably do fine if there are some of the people -- i don't know, i look him i suck at 20 years ago, i was kind of different, too good we all change and we all matured and they will tell you that there is an aging out of the crime years between 18 and 30 especially to those are sort of the worst crime years.

to our past that, the chances of recidivism is much lower. host: we have four states that legalize marijuana now. if that trend continues, will that change to how sentences are meted out? guest: maybe with marijuana. we will see. host: from silver spring, maryland, hello. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good. thanks, go ahead. caller: what provisions are in place when people are released? one of the previous callers mentioned that once you have a felony conviction that you are kind of -- you have to wear that scarlet letter for life. my family deals with that because in 1993, my husband was convicted of a felony. now, he is 40 years old and has worked ever since his release. he has been an outstanding citizen, but he cannot vote. we applied for something

recently and it still shows up something that happened over 20 years ago. or what can we do to encourage people to continue to move forward because not everyone may be in a loving situation or a supportive situation to encourage them that although it is hard, although your resources are limited, although you have difficult times finding jobs were getting approval because of something that has happened in the past, everyone does not have that reassurance that it is going to be ok. not even reassurance, but for many people, it does not get ok. they do end up returning to ways not are not productive or things we want for our society. what can we do instead of judging individuals? what is out there and what can be added to what is there to make the situation better and to realize that a mistake does not turn you into just someone who

should be marginalized for life? guest: that is a really hard thing to answer. there nothing that can be done sort of policy wise in direct ways. i think a lot of what you are describing is thus there is ininning to be a shift perception of prisoners are people with felony records that they are not all these remorseless people and we should throw away the key. with 2.2 million people in prison and many of them have -- today when i talk to people in a room of 25 people and say how many do you know in prison, probably a court of hands go up here and has become such a widespread phenomenon that it is no longer the other guys going to prison. like if somebody else's family and some the else's problem. the more that we accept that people have become familiar lies a low bit with effect that people go to to prison very readily in this country and

everyone knows someone, i think it would give a little bit of a shift to how we perceive them and whether we welcome them back with more open arms. with coke industries and large corporations encouraging the people are not being judged from the application whether they have a felony or not, i think that is a helpful. one other thing i meant to mention is that when the 16,000 were anytime anyone gets out of federal prison, they are put under what is supervised released for five years. generally, the term is five years. that means there is a probation officer they have to check in for all that time. maybe it is monthly to start with and a few months after that. they have to do your analysis testing and all sorts of oversights to make sure that they are not out there create -- committing a new crime. that will not guarantee that no one will commit a new crime, but it provides the public a little more safety over what they're doing when they get up to -- get out. you have expansion the

corrections system, we want to hear your opinion. (202) 748-8000. atlantic"tory in "the highlighted the work in the senate when it comes to these laws. what is going on? guest: there's a plethora of bills and all them are bipartisan. or someone who has been doing it so long and it trying to pull a sentencing bill out of congress, this is an amazing time. what i think is such a big deal about the bill announced last week from the senate is that senator grassley, the chair of the senate judiciary committee, is leading it. he has been one of our most difficult members of congress to accept that something really needs to be done. host: they resisted at first. very resistant. it's a companion bill at the house introduced by heresentative goodlatte it has judiciary committee.

both of them have been very difficult to persuade and both have introduced reinforcing the something laws. they are not perfect, but they are heck of a lot better than where we are at right now. they would do much to review the mandatory minimum sentencing. host: weatherby reductions in numbers? guest: there would be reductions in numbers and these bills. makeof these bills would eligible for release the people are serving crack cocaine sentences they did not make it retroactive. retroactive.at about 6500 federal prisoners would be eligible for early release. again, it is not automatic. everyone has to go to court to be considered whether or not they are a safety risk. that would be one of the things. there are other things. life sentences would be dropped to 30 years. second offensive that are currently at 30 -- at 20 would

be dropped to 15. there are some retroactive applications that would have a significant impact on people's lives. viewers,st to remind these people would not be coming out all at once. they would not be released at all if they are violent. there are lots of steps that protect the public from some onslaught of crazed convicts. that is just not -- i have been hearing this for decades, ime things are done retroactively, there is a stealing that the sky will fall. lee and booker talked about this at the washington ideas form here in washington, d.c.. they talked about the bipartisan nature of this. i have some comments. i want to play it for you. [video clip] >> i think this is one of many issues where we can attack byblems that we agree upon

republicans and democrats. this is a problem that is neither democrat nor republican, it is simply an american issue. >> grassley was giving opinions on the floor that i radically disagreed with. i could have started out by getting on the senate for an attacking him, but instead, i sat with him, and began conversation with him, and worked overtime to a point where we are today. are manyat about -- legislators getting behind this effort, is it a select few, is it a widespread thing in the house and senate? guest: it is widespread. there is no one the c thinks i -- no one that things are current system is ok. is in the details. not everyone wants to go as far as i would like them to. the fact that there is so much bipartisan consensus on current

istencing policy being wrong a huge step. we have never had that before. host: ultimately, what would you like to see? guest: i would like to see the repeal of mandatory minimums. more about the defendant than any member of congress or state legislator passing a sentencing law waste solely on something as silly as weight. host: sam, fort lauderdale, florida, good morning. caller: good morning. ex-felon. and -- i did time in the federal bureau of prisons. bank fraud. uniquely, when i was arrested, i had guns in my possession in my house because i did some

business with some hard-core folks that needed protection. i did not get to do time in the eds, i didclub f time in a medium security fci. i want to think this lady because 8-10 years ago, i subscribe to a magazine, and contributed to an organization due to the onerous federal sentencing. i'm not so sure it was the but themandatories, smallest things -- if you have the wrong combination of circumstances, the federal , andlines and prosecutors every other upgrade they can put on you, some of these sentences are ridiculous for very small things. host: we will let our guest

respond. guest: he is right. we have been talking drug offenses largely today because that is the type of offender getting out soon. yes, white-collar offenses are nearly as ridiculous, if not as ridiculous as drug offenses. like drug offenses, which are based solely on one factor, the weight of the drug, white-collar are often based on be lost or intended loss, even if there was no transaction. one factor is important to consider, but it should not be the deciding factor on what the sentence should be. i would like to address his "club fed." this is a frustrating phrase to hear because believe me, no one wants to be in prison. even if it is an easier prison than another, you still want to be home with your kids. a friend was in prison at a cap,

spent 20 years in prison. visiting him there, it was shocking to me to visit him and his room and go through less security to get through national security at the airport. there was no medical detector, onene -- metal detector, no added me down. i have long wondered why we have cap's like that -- camps like that. those men and women staying at the camps are voluntarily staying there. they could walk away at any time. they're not as much of a public threat for us to have them there. they could be at home with an ankle bracelet, working, supporting their families. we have so embraced the prison culture in this country that punishment is good, and we cannot have too much of it. i'm 58 years old. i remember when i was a kid, and 20 years in prison was a huge amount of time. that is what murderers god.

today, we are putting nonviolent drug offenders in prison. we have to turn the ship around. we have to go back to something that is rational. it is like we are the frog in the pot, and we turned up the heat, and we have not realize how hot it has gotten. host: tomorrow we will be live from the maryland montgomery system. we will talk with experts with in the facility. that program takes place tomorrow starting at 7:30 on "washington journal." wanda of next from tennessee. go ahead. caller: i have a situation similar to your brother and law where he was given a five-year probation. , ithe same time, right now am a mother with two children

whom are unable to receive .ssistance i have a degree in early childhood. i cannot even help my own children. because of this 30 year old felony, i feel like i am a second-class citizen. at this time, i'm wondering, if no one is looking into how to improve for the people whom are you know, i am-- not a criminal. i know my family would like to back me on that. i would like to commend you for showing the million man march. i did not see it anywhere else. with that, you guys, have a great day. you know, i wish i had a magic wand to help people who have gotten out and have a felony record. it is a shadow that is going to fall you until you die. i don't imagine we will see

congress saying, after 10 or 15 years, that felony record to go away. i would love that. if there is someone out there that wants to start an organization to fight for that, go ahead. host: what about your brother? engineeringt an degree and worked for some and norma's corporation. he has security clearance, not up to the top, but he is ok. there are some things he can do. he cap vote, for instance. he probably couldn't be a realtor, if you wanted to be. his life has moved on. is white. two, he was able to move a cross the country from where his felony occurred to get away from the people he knew that were

engaged in the activities that he got in trouble for in the first place. not everyone has that advantage. support system. he came and worked in my organization for three years, he had a job when he arrived. not everybody has that. host: jimmy is up next for you. fort myers, florida. go ahead. caller: yes. i would like to thank ms. spentt for her time addressing the matter of over sentencing. ask if also like to there are any things in the working for, let's say, discrimination act for people trying to reenter the society. a lot of these people will get .ut inevitably regardless

i guess the problem out there, even with the programs of occupational there be going on, the problem then becomes that they are stigmatized. i would like to give a little bit as far as my background goes. given ayears ago, i was felon for possession of .02 grams of cocaine. that was over 12 years ago. , any amount of cocaine is considered a felon. i did not go to jail for five years, i want to jail for under one year. at, i'm still vilified as felon, and find it hard that i rights.pply for my full

in my state, they upload your record to google, which is just about every employer inquires into. stands, your employer can turn you down at any point, without regards as to why. that allows for a very tumultuous reentry for people who have gone over 12 years for way under the ideal, when you think about what a felon is. in the common perception, you would think i was trafficking some major amount. , would like to see something not in the form of discrimination laws out there that allow for corporations to continue this practice that is

not really happening. host: we will let our guests respond. guest: first of all, jimmy brings up one point that i should mention. if you are a federal felon, you can apply for a pardon from the president. it restores your civil liberties. it allows you to carry a gun again. felonyot a race your record. many states offer the same thing. if you are convicted of a state crime, you can appeal for a pardon. they are not easy to get and take years and years. i think jimmy and so many other callers bring up this point about how hard it is to reenter. when the caller earlier mention, how many of these people will commit another crime, it is a large number, but look at how many barriers there are. all of the callers are repeating the same thing which is it is really hard to get back into society with a felony record. we create difficulties and

allowing them to reenter society. it is not surprising to me that many of them commit another crime. if we embraced them willingly, tried to get them jobs, tried to help them, as far as i know, getting rid of a felony record will not happen, but if we can provide an environment that is more welcoming, a lot fewer people would go back to prison. host: this is dean in virginia. caller: it is horrible. secondly, we need to think about legalizing marijuana. most of these people, who are actually nonviolent criminals, are for marijuana. if all the states legalize we would have all the .ax money

i think that is a big part of the problem. ing marijuana is a good way to start that, and get rid of mandatory minimum so that these people don't get charged with all this extra time that they don't really deserve to have in the first place. sam does not take -- famm stand ontake a marijuana. in the federal system, it is mostly cocaine. honestly, if marijuana were legalized in most of the states, i doubt the federal government would prosecute very many marijuana cases. they can, even in the states where does legal. change the landscape. it would change the dynamic, definitely. a full legalization is not a stance that famm takes. host: