Tom Carper on Crime Democratic Sr Senator (DE)

Supports mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws

Prior "victim's rights" legislation assured this exchange of information only in cases where the defendant was an adult.

Agressively clean up criminal "hot spots"

Keep violent offendors behind bars

More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes.

Title: To provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes.

Summary: Provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any violent crime that is motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim or is a violation of hate crime laws.

1. Award grants to assist State and local law enforcement officials with extraordinary expenses for interstate hate crimes.

2. Award grants to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

3. Prohibit specified offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

4. Increase criminal sentencing for adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes.

5. Collect and publish data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on gender.

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.

First step: reduce recidivism & mass incarceration.

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

Rated 73% by the NAPO, indicating a moderate stance on 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.

Tougher juvenile crime penalties; but let states set them.

The bills [Congress is working on] support many effective juvenile justice strategies, including incarceration for anyone who knowingly provides a firearm to a minor for illegal use, and additional penalties for those who illegally sell or transfer firearms or engage in drug trafficking at or near a school site, park, or other area where children and youth congregate. While many of your goals are laudable and Governors support them, we do not approve of the various mandates, restrictions, and fund set-asides in H.R. 1501 and 254. States are in the best position to determine penalties for juvenile crime. States need more, not less flexibility to deal with delinquent behavior. Flexibility is essential to allow states to continue to find out what works, developing “best practices” on proven programs, and learning from each other. Federal mandates and one-size-fits-all prescriptions short-circuit experimentation and innovation.

The nation’s Governors are deeply concerned about attempts to expand federal criminal law into traditional state criminal justice system functions. This will contribute little to reducing crime. Moreover, it undermines state and local anti-crime efforts. Governors also believe that federal concurrent jurisdiction in criminal justice efforts will be used by the federal government to impose additional burdensome mandates on state and local crime control and law enforcement officials, especially with regard to federal authority over juvenile offenders. One example is the mandate that states establish and maintain federally-prescribed “Juvenile Criminal History Record” data banks. The pending bills are not clear on what information must be provided to and will remain in the national data bases, who will have access to the data, how long the data will be maintained and made available, and how the data will be used. We also affirm states’ rights under our federal system to control access to their own data.