|
Chuck Grassley on Crime
Republican Sr Senator (IA)
|
|
Supports peer-to-peer counseling & privacy for law officers
[Senator Chuck Grassley joined Senator] Cortez Masto on legislation to encourage the adoption of law enforcement peer counseling programs and protect the privacy of officers. "Peer-to-peer counseling provides valuable mental health support to law
enforcement, but a lack of resources and concerns over confidentiality remain barriers to entry for too many departments," said Senator Cortez Masto. " It's time we support public safety officers who are bravely seeking the mental health care they need."
Source: Senate press release for 2022 Iowa Senate race
, Mar 11, 2020
Expand mandatory minimum s for firearm & terrorism offenses
[In the bipartisan package of criminal justice reforms], Grassley's influence can be seen in provisions that increase the use of mandatory minimums. [One analyst] summarizes that the new bill would "expand mandatory minimum sentences for certain
offenses, enhancing their use to punish selected firearm crimes and creating new mandatory minimums for offenses related to domestic violence and supporting terrorism." These changes "may address one of the common criticisms of mandatory minimums, which
can result in heavier penalties for drug crimes than far graver offenses, such as violent crime."Current firearm-related provisions dictate draconian penalties for people who never actually wield a gun--[the new package imposes] longer sentences
for "selected firearm crimes." Likewise with "new mandatory minimums" for "supporting terrorism," which can include nonviolent actions such as donating money to the wrong charity or even exercising the right to freedom of speech.
Source: Reason Magazine on 2016 Iowa Senate race
, Oct 1, 2015
Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program.
Amendment would increase funding for the COPS Program to $1.15 billion for FY 2008 to provide state and local law enforcement with critical resources. The funding is offset by an unallocated reduction to non-defense discretionary spending.Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This amendment reinstates the COPS Program. I remind everyone, when the COPS Program was functioning, violent crime in America reduced 8.5% a year for 7 years in a row. Throughout the 1990s, we funded the COPS Program at roughly $1.2 billion, and it drove down crime. Now crime is rising again. The COPS Program in the crime bill worked, and the Government Accounting Office found a statistical link between the COPS grants and a reduction in crime.
The Brookings Institution reported the COPS Program is one of the most cost-effective programs we have ever had in this country. Local officials urgently need this support.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The COPS Program has some history. It was started by President Clinton. He asked for 100,000 police officers. He said that when we got to 100,000, the program would stop. We got to 110,000 police officers and the program continues on and on and on.
This program should have ended 5 years ago or 6 years ago, but it continues. It is similar to so many Federal programs that get constituencies that go on well past what their original purpose was. It may be well intentioned, but we cannot afford it and we shouldn't continue it. It was never thought it would be continued this long.
Reference: Biden Amendment;
Bill S.Amdt.529 on S.Con.Res.21
; vote number 2007-110
on Mar 23, 2007
Voted NO on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program.
Vote on an amendment to authorize $1.15 billion per year from 2000 through 2005 to continue and expand the Community Oriented Policing Services program. $600 million of the annual funding is marked for hiring additional officers [up to 50,000]
Reference:
Bill S.254
; vote number 1999-139
on May 20, 1999
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals.
Vote to table, or kill, a motion to send the bill back to the joint House-Senate conference committee with instructions to delete the provisions in the bill that would make it harder for prisoners given the death penalty in state courts to appeal.
Reference:
Bill S.735
; vote number 1996-66
on Apr 17, 1996
Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards.
Approval of a limit on punitive damages in product liability cases.
Status: Conf Rpt Agreed to Y)59; N)40; NV)1
Reference: Conference Report on H.R. 956;
Bill H. R. 956
; vote number 1996-46
on Mar 21, 1996
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits.
Restriction of class-action security lawsuits.
Status: Veto Overridden Y)68; N)30; P)1
Reference: H.R. 1058 passage over veto;
Bill H.R. 1058
; vote number 1995-612
on Dec 22, 1995
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits.
Repeal federal speeding limits.
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)64; N)36
Reference: Motion to table Lautenberg Amdt #1428;
Bill S. 440
; vote number 1995-270
on Jun 20, 1995
Voted YES on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms.
Vote on the motion to instruct conferees on the bill to insist that the conference report include Mandatory prison terms for the use, possession, or carrying of a firearm or destructive device during a state crime of violence or drug trafficking
Reference:
Bill HR.3355
; vote number 1994-126
on May 19, 1994
Voted YES on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals.
Vote to express that the Omnibus Crime bill [H.R. 3355] should reject the Racial Justice Act provisions, which would enable prisoners appealing death penalty sentences to argue racial discrimination using sentencing statistics as part of their appeal.
Reference:
Bill S 1935
; vote number 1994-106
on May 11, 1994
Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes.
Grassley scores 25% by CURE on rehabilitation issues
CURE (Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants) is a membership organization of families of prisoners, prisoners, former prisoners and other concerned citizens. CURE's two goals are
- to use prisons only for those who have to be in them; and
- for those who have to be in them, to provide them all the rehabilitative opportunities they need to turn their lives around.
The ratings indicate the legislator’s percentage score on CURE’s preferred votes.
Source: CURE website 00n-CURE on Dec 31, 2000
Death penalty for killing police officers.
Grassley signed death penalty for killing police officers
Congressional Summary: Makes the killing or attempted killing of a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or other first responder an aggravating factor in death penalty determinations [when] the defendant killed or attempted to kill a person who is authorized by law:
- to engage in or supervise the prevention, detention, investigation, or prosecution, or the incarceration of any person for any criminal violation of law;
- to apprehend, arrest, or prosecute an individual for any criminal violation of law; or
- to be a firefighter or other first responder.
- And that the person was killed--
- while he or she was engaged in the performance of his or her official duties;
- because of the performance of his or her official duties; or
- because of his or her status as a public official or employee.
Opposing argument: [Sen. Bernie Sanders, Oct. 13, 2015]: "Black lives matter. The African American community knows that on any given day some
innocent person like Sandra Bland can get into a car, and three days later she's dead in jail. We need to combat institutional racism from top to bottom, and we need major reforms in a broken criminal justice system. I intend to make sure people have education and jobs rather than jail cells."
Opposing argument: [ACLU of Louisiana, July 7, 2015]: Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards signed a bill into law that makes targeting a police officer a hate crime. Passage of such bills is a top priority for a national organization called Blue Lives Matter, which was formed in response to the Black Lives Matter movement. [A video captured] "police killing a black man who was minding his own business," says the director of ACLU-LA. But it was the civil rights of police officers that Edwards was concerned about, as if theirs were being routinely violated: "I'm not aware of any evidence that police officers have been victimized that would justify giving them special protection."
Source: Thin Blue Line Act 16-S2034 on Feb 9, 2015
First step: reduce recidivism & mass incarceration.
Grassley voted YEA First Step Act
Congressional Summary:
- TITLE I--RECIDIVISM REDUCTION: establish a risk and needs assessment system to evaluate the recidivism risk of prisoners; to guide housing assignments; and to reward participation in recidivism reduction programs.
- TITLE II--BUREAU OF PRISONS SECURE FIREARMS STORAGE: allow federal correctional officers to securely store and carry concealed firearms on BOP premises outside the security perimeter of a prison.
- TITLE III--RESTRAINTS ON PREGNANT PRISONERS PROHIBITED: limits the use of restraints on federal prisoners who are pregnant or in postpartum recovery.
- TITLE IV--SENTENCING REFORM: reduces the enhanced mandatory minimum prison terms for certain repeat drug offenses.
Opposing press release from Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-1):: The reform sentencing laws in this bill may compromise the safety of our communities. Criminals convicted of violent crimes would have the opportunity to
achieve 'low risk' status and become eligible for early release. California already has similar laws in place--Propositions 47 and 57--which have hamstrung law enforcement and caused a significant uptick in crime.
Supporting press release from Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-10):: S. 756 establishes a new system to reduce the risk that [federal prisoners] will commit crimes once they are released. Critically, S. 756 would not only implement these reforms to our prison system, but it also takes a crucial first step toward addressing grave concerns about our sentencing laws, which have for years fed a national crisis of mass incarceration. The bill is a 'first step' that demonstrates that we can work together to make the system fairer in ways that will also reduce crime and victimization.
Legislative outcome: Concurrence Passed Senate, 87-12-1, on Dec. 18, 2018; Concurrence Passed House 358-36-28, Dec. 20, 2018; President Trump signed, Dec. 21, 2018
Source: Congressional vote 18-S756 on Dec 20, 2018
Easier access to rape kits, and more rape kit analysis.
Grassley signed easier access to rape kits, and more rape kit analysis
Congress finds the following: - Rape is a serious problem.
- In 2006, there were an estimated 261,000 rapes and sexual assaults.
- The collection and testing of DNA evidence is a critical tool in solving rape cases.
- Despite the availability of funding under the Debbie Smith Act of 2004, there exists a significant rape kit backlog.
- A 1999 study estimated that there was an annual backlog of 180,000 rape kits that had not been analyzed.
- No agency regularly collects information regarding the scope of the rape kit backlog.
- Certain States cap reimbursement for rape kits at levels that are less than 1/2 the average cost of a rape kit.
- There is a lack of health professionals who have received specialized training specific to sexual assault victims.
The purpose of this Act is to address the problems surrounding forensic evidence collection in cases of sexual assault, including rape kit backlogs, reimbursement for or free provision of rape kits, and the
availability of trained health professionals to administer rape kit examinations.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.
Source: Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault (S2736&HR4114) 2009-S2736 on Nov 5, 2009
Rated 55% by the NAPO, indicating a moderate stance on police issues.
Grassley scores 55% by the NAPO on crime & police issues
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.
Source: NAPO ratings on Congress and politicians 2014_NAPO on Dec 31, 2014
Page last updated: May 21, 2022