To call this shoddy journalism would be an understatement. It doesn't even rise to the level of shoddy.

Megan McArdle, while respecting the desire that there be mercy in the judicial system, frequently points out that there are just not that many people in Federal prison who have long sentences and non-violent convictions. With greater variance by state, the same is generally true for states. Non-violent prisoners with long sentences are certainly candidates for review as to whether some shortening of sentences might be warranted. There just aren't that many of them.

A position somewhat reinforced in this piece from A Poster Boy for the Long-Sentenced, Non-Violent Drug Offender? by Kent Scheidegger. NBC News (and MSNBC) made the claim by reporter Leigh Ann Caldwell that:

"William Underwood, now 65 years old, was sentenced to life in prison without parole for a nonviolent drug-related crime. It was his first felony, but in the middle of the tough-on-crime era, the judge showed no leniency. With no hope of ever walking free again, Underwood has made the best of his time in prison, mentoring others and staying devoted to his children and grandchildren, as (his daughter) Ebony fights for his release."

Is Mr. Underwood one of those unicorns who have a long sentence and no violence.

Scheidegger investigates and discovers quickly that Leigh Ann Caldwell, whether by ignorance, accident or malicious intent, left out most of the relevant details from her description.

So let's compare what we know (and NBC could have known with minimal effort) with Ms. Caldwell's description of the case: " a nonviolent drug-related crime ... his first felony ...."

"Nonviolent"? The racketeering and continuing criminal enterprise crimes are not inherently violent or nonviolent. They could be either, depending on the predicate acts. The court of appeals says the operation was "extremely violent." False.

"Drug-related"? Yes, but so what? His drug offenses were accompanied by violent offenses. Calling the convictions "drug-related" in conjunction with the false "nonviolent" gives the reader a very wrong impression. Literally true but misleading in context.

"A ... crime"? Singular. He was convicted of multiple crimes. False.

"His first felony"? The singular again is false. "First felon[ies]" would be literally true if it referred to his first felony convictions and completely false if it referred to the first felonies he committed. The predicate acts establish a long string of felonies. Ambiguous, with the false meaning being the one the viewer is most likely to take.

"But in the middle of the tough-on-crime era, the judge showed no leniency"? Given the judge's finding of fact that Underwood's continuing crimes extended past the Guideline's effective date, the life sentence was mandatory under the then-binding Guidelines. The implication that the judge had discretion under the law but chose not to use it because of the "tough-on-crime" zeitgeist is false.

To call this shoddy journalism would be an understatement. What will NBC and its affiliate MSNBC do? Issue a retraction and apology? Pull the segment off the website? Fire the reporter? All of the above? None of the above?

He has all the documentation in his post.

Reporters appear to be increasingly writing what they wish were true and nobody in the MSM seems to be checking whether it actually is true. As Pete Seeger might have said:

Where have all the editors gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the editors gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the editors gone?
MSM have nixed them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?