Jim Costa on Crime Democratic Representative (CA-20)

Voted YES on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. JOHN CONYERS (D, MI-14):This bill expands existing Federal hate crimes law to groups who are well-known targets for bias-based violence--they are sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability. These crimes of violence are directed not just at those who are directly attacked; they are targeting the entire group with the threat of violence.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. LAMAR SMITH (R, TX-21): Every year thousands of violent crimes are committed out of hate, but just as many violent crimes, if not more, are motivated by something other than hate--greed, jealousy, desperation or revenge, just to name a few. An individual's motivation for committing a violent crime is usually complex and often speculative. Every violent crime is deplorable, regardless of its motivation. That's why all violent crimes should be vigorously prosecuted. Unfortunately, this bill undermines one of the most basic principles of our criminal justice system--equal justice for all. Under this bill, justice will no longer be equal. Justice will now depend on the race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected status of the victim. It will allow different penalties to be imposed for the same crime. This is the real injustice.

Voted YES on expanding services for offenders' re-entry into society.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. CONYERS: Some 650,000 men and women are leaving the Federal and State prisons each year. While the vast majority of the prisoners are committed to abiding by the law and becoming productive members of society, they often encounter the same pressures & temptations that they faced before prison. More than two-thirds of them are arrested for new crimes within 3 years of their release. This exacts a terrible cost in financial terms as well as in human terms. The Second Chance Act will help provide these men and women with the training, counseling and other support needed to help them obtain & hold steady jobs; to kick their drug and alcohol habits; rebuild their families; and deal with the many other challenges that they face in their efforts to successfully rejoin society.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. GOHMERT: The programs that are sought to be renewed are ones we don't have information on how successful they were. I can tell you from my days as a judge, there was some anecdotal evidence that it looked like faith-based programs did a better job of dramatically reducing recidivism. In addition:

• There are some provisions that allow for too much administration. That is going to build a bigger bureaucracy.
• Dismissing all charges if someone completes drug rehab under another provision I think is outrageous. You are going to remove the hammer that would allow you to keep people in line?
• We also have a provision to teach inmates how they can go about getting the most welfare before they leave prison and go out on their own.

Facilitate recovering crime victim restitution fees.

Congressional Summary:

• Requires the chief justice of the highest court of any state that wishes to collect past-due, legally enforceable state judicial debts to designate a single state entity to communicate judicial debt information to the Secretary of the Treasury.
• Directs the Secretary, upon receiving notice from such an entity that a named person owes a past-due, legally enforceable state judicial debt, to pay such debt from any tax refund due to such person.
• Defines "state judicial debt" to include court costs, fees, fines, assessments, restitution to victims of crime, and other monies resulting from a judgment or sentence rendered by any court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction handling criminal or traffic cases in the state.

Sponsored Constitutional Amendment defining victims' rights.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims.

Congressional Summary:Prohibits denial or abridgement of the rights of a crime victim to fairness, respect, and dignity. Grants a crime victim the right:

1. to not be excluded from public proceedings relating to the offense;
2. to be heard at any release, plea, sentencing, or other such proceeding;
3. to proceedings free from unreasonable delay;
4. to reasonable notice of the release or escape of the accused;
5. to due consideration of the crime victim's safety and privacy; and
6. to restitution.

Opponent's argument against bill: (Testimony of Prof. Robert P. Mosteller before the House Subcommittee):

The infamous police brutality case of Rodney King in Los Angeles provides an example of the problematic nature of giving special trial rights to victims. But for the videotape shot by a neighbor of the beating administered by the police to King, King was on his way to being charged with assault on police officers. In this prosecution, the true perpetrators would hav

Easier access to rape kits, and more rape kit analysis.

Congress finds the following:
1. Rape is a serious problem.
2. In 2006, there were an estimated 261,000 rapes and sexual assaults.
3. The collection and testing of DNA evidence is a critical tool in solving rape cases.
4. Despite the availability of funding under the Debbie Smith Act of 2004, there exists a significant rape kit backlog.
5. A 1999 study estimated that there was an annual backlog of 180,000 rape kits that had not been analyzed.
6. No agency regularly collects information regarding the scope of the rape kit backlog.
7. Certain States cap reimbursement for rape kits at levels that are less than 1/2 the average cost of a rape kit.
8. There is a lack of health professionals who have received specialized training specific to sexual assault victims.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:

Sen. FRANKEN: Last year, 90,000 people were raped. Thanks to modern technology, we have an unparalleled tool to bring sexual predators to justice: forensic DNA analysis. Rape kit DNA evidence is survivors' best bet for justice. Unfortunately, we have failed to make adequate use of DNA analysis. In 2004, then-Sen. Biden and others worked to pass the Debbie Smith Act, a law named after a rape survivor whose backlogged rape kit was tested six years after her assault. Unfortunately, because many localities simply did not use the Debbie Smith funds they were allocated, the promise of the Debbie Smith Act remains unfulfilled.

In 2009, Los Angeles had 12,500 untested rape kits; Houston found at least 4,000 untested rape kits in storage, and Detroit reported a backlog of possibly 10,000 kits. Those are just three cities. Hundreds of thousands of women have not seen justice.

Rated 92% by the NAPO, indicating a tough-on-crime stance.

Ratings by the National Association of Police Organizations indicate support or opposition to issues of importance to police and crime. The organization's self-description: "The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) is a coalition of police units and associations from across the United States. NAPO was organized for the purpose of advancing the interests of America's law enforcement officers through legislative advocacy, political action, and education.

"Increasingly, the rights and interests of law enforcement officers have been the subject of legislative, executive, and judicial action in the nation’s capital. NAPO works to influence the course of national affairs where law enforcement interests are concerned. The following list includes examples of NAPO’s accomplishments:

• Enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act
• Enactment of the National AMBER Alert Act
• Enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
• Enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
• Enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act (Right to Carry Legislation)

VoteMatch scoring for the NAPO ratings is as follows:

• 0%-50%: soft on crime and police issues;
• 50%-75%: mixed record on crime and police issues;
• 75%-100%: tough on crime and police issues.

Stricter rules for law enforcement accountability.

This bill addresses policing practices and law enforcement accountability:

• lowers the criminal intent standard--from willful to knowing or reckless--to convict a law enforcement officer for misconduct in a federal prosecution,
• limits qualified immunity as a defense to liability in a private civil action against a law enforcement officer, and
• grants administrative subpoena power to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in pattern-or-practice investigations.

Rep. Elise Stefanik in OPPOSITION (3/1/21): I voted against H.R. 1280--this bill poses a grave danger to law-abiding police officers, as it would eliminate qualified immunity protections, lower the standard for federal civil rights lawsuits, and limit access to necessary equipment during emergencies and natural disasters. Democrats rushed this bill to the House Floor without accepting any input from Republicans, expert testimony, or significant data. I am proud to sponsor the JUSTICE Act with Senator Tim Scott, to provide necessary reforms to end police brutality while protecting our law-abiding officers.

OnTheIssues explanation of "qualified immunity": "Qualified immunity" means that police officers (and other government officials) cannot be sued for actions on duty, unless knowingly taking unreasonable actions. This bill would limit "qualified immunity," which means the family in cases like George Floyd's could sue the police for civil damages.

Biden Administration in SUPPORT (3/1/21): We must begin by rebuilding trust between law enforcement and the people they are entrusted to serve and protect. We cannot rebuild that trust if we do not hold police officers accountable for abuses of power and tackle systemic misconduct--and systemic racism--in police departments.

Legislative Outcome: Passed House 220-212-0 on March 3, 2021, rollcall #60; received in Senate on March 9; no further Senate action during 2021.