John Linder on Crime Republican Representative (GA-7)

Voted NO 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 NO on expanding services for offendors' 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.

Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.

Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.

Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals.

Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder.

Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment.

Rated 30% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes.

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

1. to use prisons only for those who have to be in them; and
2. for those who have to be in them, to provide them all the rehabilitative opportunities they need to turn their lives around.

More prison cells; more truth in sentencing.

• To encourage each State to adopt truth in sentencing laws and to help fund additional spaces in the State correctional programs as needed.
• Provide grants to States to build, expand, or operate space in correctional facilities in order to implement specified "truth in sentencing" requirements.
• Requires a State, to be eligible for funding under this Act, to have in effect throughout the State such requirements, including provisions which:
  1. restrict parole, good-time credit release, or other forms of early release to require that criminals convicted of crimes of violence serve at least 85% of the sentence imposed by a judge or jury;
  2. require the sentencing authority to allow the defendant's victim or the victim's family the opportunity to be heard regarding the issue of sentencing;
  3. allow as a sentencing option a "life sentence" without the possibility of parole; and
  4. provide that the victim and the victim's family shall be notified whenever such defendant is to be released.

More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty.

[As part of the Contract with America, within 100 days we pledge to bring to the House Floor the following bill]:

The Taking Back Our Streets Act:
An anti-crime package including stronger truth in sentencing, “good faith” exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer’s crime bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.