James Sensenbrenner on Crime Republican Representative (WI-5)

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 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.

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.

Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance.

Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007
• Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to expand provisions for adult and juvenile offender state and local reentry demonstration projects to provide expanded services to offenders and their families for reentry into society.
• Directs the Attorney General to award grants for:
  1. state and local reentry courts;
  2. Comprehensive and Continuous Offender Reentry Task Forces;
  3. pharmacological drug treatment services to incarcerated offenders;
  4. technology career training for offenders;
  5. mentoring services for reintegrating offenders into the community;
  6. pharmacological drug treatment services to incarcerated offenders;
  7. prison-based family treatment programs for incarcerated parents of minor children; and
  8. a study of parole or post-incarceration supervision violations and revocations.

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."

Stricter sentencing for hate crimes.

Congressional Summary:

• To make sentencing guidelines for Federal criminal cases that provide sentencing enhancements for hate crimes.
• Amends the Federal judicial code to require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to:
• promulgate or amend existing guidelines to provide for sentencing enhancements of not less than three offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes; and
• assure reasonable consistency with other guidelines, avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense, and take into account any mitigating circumstances that might justify exceptions.

Proponents' Argument in Favor:Rep. SENSENBRENNER. This bill does not create a new Federal crime. Nothing that is presently not criminal now would be made criminal as a result of enactment. What enactment of H.R. 1152 will do is provide for enhanced criminal penalties for certain specifically designated hate crimes. As used in the bill, the term hate crime is defined as a Federal crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation of the person. Hate crimes are more serious offenses and often result in a greater level of injury to the victim and to society.

Rated 54% 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.

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.