Government Watch

Congress at Fault for Early Release Felon Committing Columbus, Ohio Triple Murder

arrest-handcuffsFrom – – By Rick Manning

The brutal Columbus, Ohio murder of Erveena Hammonds and her 7 and 10 year-old daughters, whose throats were slit by an early-released felon, is exhibit A of why Congress should reject legislation designed to let thousands more convicted drug criminals out of federal prison prematurely.

If Congress had not enacted the so-called 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, Wendell Callahan would still be in jail and Erveena Hammonds and her two daughters, Breya and Anaesia, would still be alive.

The tragedy of a felon who got almost four years knocked off his sentence re-entering the life of his former girlfriend and violently ending it was sadly predictable. A multi-year 30 state study on the recidivism of more than 400,000 felons released in 2005 showed that unfortunately 75 percent of those released re-entered the criminal justice system and 25 percent of the crimes were violent.

At the time the U.S. Sentencing Commission was retroactively applying the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act to release already-convicted felons, several Republican members of Congress objected, writing in a letter to the Commission that their action “there is no provision in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 regarding retroactivity [and] it is beyond the role and authority of the Sentencing Commission to impose that change without direction or guidance from the popularly accountable legislative branch. Should the Commission amend the Guidelines to make these changes retroactive, it will usurp legislative prerogatives, and bring into serious question the scope of its authority.”

The problem appears to be that the law that established the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 8 U.S.C. 944, that Congress passed in 1984, may grant the power to the commission retroactively reduce sentences, for example in subsection (u): “If the Commission reduces the term of imprisonment recommended in the guidelines applicable to a particular offense or category of offenses, it shall specify in what circumstances and by what amount the sentences of prisoners serving terms of imprisonment for the offense may be reduced.”

Now President Obama and Congress are moving ahead with more legislation that will provide early release to some of our nation’s largest drug dealers all under the guise of compassion. This tragedy makes the case that Congress  would need to specifically say in the upcoming bill that it doesn’t apply retroactively if they want to stop that from occurring. The problem with the new bill is that it explicitly provides for retroactivity, guaranteeing future violent crimes committed by early-released felons as a result.

President Obama is already in the process of unilaterally letting 46,000 federal felons go early, a move that will exacerbate the already tense situations in cities like Baltimore, Maryland and Chicago, Illinois which suffered through record numbers of homicides in the past year.

It is time for Congress to start exhibiting some compassion for the people who these major drug dealers destroyed through their illegal trade, and the neighborhoods and communities which were decimated due to their pervasive influence.

The last thing that is needed is for Congress to throw fuel on the fire by adding some of the worst drug traffickers to the mix, some of whom were also convicted for having a gun in their possession while committing their crimes.

Simply stated, if Congress passes the mass criminal release bill that is being considered under the auspices of ‘reform’ Erveena Hammond and her two girls will not be the last to die due to Congressional prisoner reprieves. One wonders what the heck Congress is thinking?

Note: Updated to include Congressional Republican response to U.S. Sentencing Commission’s retroactive application of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act, and to cite 8 U.S.C. 944.

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ivan Berry
6 years ago

Well Folks, since the founding we were supposed to leave to the general government provisions for assisting in protecting the people of the several States. So, let us bring in all the unvetted refugees we can, let all the violent felons out of prison, make everyone pay for health care they don’t need while paying for someone else killing thier unborn baby, take away the peoples’ guns so they cannot defend themselves and love ones, lock all law-abiding behind the walls and bars of the prisons, let them all out of GitMo. We will all be safe on the inside. Sound good? That seems to be what the socialists want. Maybe we could even see to it that they were the first protected. Can I have the key, please.

6 years ago

Early release for convicted felons? … Sure, why not? … Why should we taxpayers have to subsidize their care for 20 years in a prison where they get, food, health care and housing with some social recreation thrown in?

I agree, release them … But first, maim them in some way, cripple an arm or leg if they committed a felony, neuter them if they are rapists, blind them, whatever! If punishments were greater than the crime, that just might deter people from committing these crimes in the first place!

6 years ago

Hey, President Obama has NO problem with releasing known, high-level terrorists from the Guantanamo military detention facility. Even when it is well documented by his own administration’s officials, that more than 30 percent of these terrorists return to terrorism. So why would he have a problem letting thousands of convicted felons out early from prison? In Obama’s view of the world and our justice system, this is all about inflicting some “social justice” back on American society. That some of that “social justice” ends in the kind of senseless deaths this article covers, is probably just something Obama considers an acceptable trade-off to achieve a vision of what our justice system should be. The name of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act alone should have been a red flag to indicate it was another fine example of Washington’s short-term, feel good legislative mentality, that ignores or doesn’t contemplate the long-term effects (otherwise known as unintended consequences in political speak) of what is enacted into law. Sadly in this case, one of those unintended consequences resulted in the needless death of these three people.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x