Ron Kind on Crime Democratic Representative (WI-3)

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.

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime.

Rated 50% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation.

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.

Moratorium on death penalty; more DNA testing.

H.R. 1038, S.233:

To place a moratorium on executions by the Federal Government and urge the States to do the same, while a National Commission on the Death Penalty reviews the fairness of the imposition of the death penalty .

To reduce the risk that innocent persons may be executed [by examining DNA evidence more thoroughly].

• H. R. 912, 3/7/2001, Innocence Protection Act of 2001 (Delahunt, et. al.)
• S.486, 3/7/2001, Innocence Protection Act of 2001 (Leahy, et. al.)
• H.R.1038, 3/15/2001, National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2001 (Jackson (IL), Rodriguez, Clay, Hoeffel, Jackson-Lee (TX))
• S.233, 1/31/2001, National Death Penalty Moratorium Act of 2001 (Feingold, Levin, Wellstone, Corzine)

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.

Require DNA testing for all federal executions.

Title: To reduce the risk that innocent persons may be executed.

Summary: Authorizes a person convicted of a Federal crime to apply for DNA testing to support a claim that the person did not commit:
1. the Federal crime of which the person was convicted; or

2. any other offense that a sentencing authority may have relied upon when it sentenced the person with respect to such crime.

3. Prohibits a State from denying an application for DNA testing made by a prisoner in State custody who is under sentence of death if specified conditions apply.

4. Provides grants to prosecutors for DNA testing programs.

5. Establishes the National Commission on Capital Representation.

6. Withholds funds from States not complying with standards for capital representation.

7. Provides for capital defense incentive grants and resource grants.

8. Increases compensation in Federal cases, and sets forth provisions regarding compensation in State cases, where an individual is unjustly sentenced to death.

9. Adds a certification requirement in Federal death penalty prosecutions.

10. Expresses the sense of Congress regarding the execution of juvenile offenders and the mentally retarded.

Rated 85% 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.

Keep existing rules for police 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.