John Fleming on Crime

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.

Sponsored Constitutional Amendment defining victims' rights.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims.

Congressional Summary:Prohibits denial or abridgement of the rights of a crime victim to fairness, respect, and dignity. Grants a crime victim the right:

1. to not be excluded from public proceedings relating to the offense;
2. to be heard at any release, plea, sentencing, or other such proceeding;
3. to proceedings free from unreasonable delay;
4. to reasonable notice of the release or escape of the accused;
5. to due consideration of the crime victim's safety and privacy; and
6. to restitution.

Opponent's argument against bill: (Testimony of Prof. Robert P. Mosteller before the House Subcommittee):

The infamous police brutality case of Rodney King in Los Angeles provides an example of the problematic nature of giving special trial rights to victims. But for the videotape shot by a neighbor of the beating administered by the police to King, King was on his way to being charged with assault on police officers. In this prosecution, the true perpetrators would hav

Rated 46% by the NAPO, indicating a police-the-police 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.