Prision TermsEssay Preview: Prision TermsReport this essayAs we look at the proposal that involves doubling the maximum prison sentence for armed robbery, we must first ask ourselves if this bill would have any effect on the offenders. Over the course of the next few weeks, I will provide you with the research and knowledge on this subject so you can vote on the proposed bill with the utmost confidence that you understand if this type of punishment would work. I will also write the results of my recommendations for this bill and my reasoning behind those recommendations. You can then take into account my recommendations before you place your vote on the bill and vote with confidence no matter which way you vote.
PREP. LISA KELLY (D-FL) (Introduced),
1st Quarter, 2013
Sponsored by
MICHIGAN:
SENATE OBAMA: I want to draw attention to the fact that this week, two of my close friends who worked to raise $800 for the Children’s Defense Fund were sentenced to prison time for nonviolent drug offenses related to distributing heroin, a crime that could result in up to 17 years in prison. I understand their actions, and my colleagues in Congress, were an obvious attempt to avoid paying them for the years they served in the military.
But the Department of Justice’s own report shows that this type of program can cost nearly a quarter of a million dollars from public funding a federal prison and that the prison system is doing very well. As you know, when the Department of Justice released their report this month, it stated that more than 90% of all federal drug and drug-related arrests were in the custody of state and local authorities, not local and federal criminal law enforcement. This number is shocking — a mere 5 percent of all federal civil penalties — but it is even more shocking because of the level of support that these state and local authorities and state and local officials deserve, and the federal government continues to fund this sort of program.
It’s also troubling that federal officials are paying the inmates to engage in drug trafficking without the proper accountability — to take drugs out of their systems that would be safer. It seems the federal government is simply continuing its policy of taking money out of local budgets by promising inmates this kind of assistance. There is a growing movement to reinstate these federal prison conditions.
We now have a system in place that gives criminals the opportunity to escape the custody of local law enforcement. We could eliminate the conditions that have led to prison conditions that we did not have before because we now have a system that guarantees that inmates in local custody are never given the opportunity to gain entry to federal facilities. It’s also troubling that the federal government continues to subsidize and support these programs while this kind of prison program remains in place.
So I want to call out Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and the Department of Justice and state lawmakers that are in this fight against these practices. They clearly know that we need tougher penalties for these crimes, and we need reforms that will make it clear that federal funds are not going to these men and women who are being held responsible for violent drug crimes while these women are actually being incarcerated illegally. I want to call attention to the following:
The Department of Justice is taking money that went to the Department of Justice and into prisons that did not provide a level playing field for communities, and that is unacceptable. The Federal Bureau of Investigation in its report found that there is a troubling pattern of misconduct among federal law enforcement agencies in the
First, I would like provide you with history of repeat offenders. With the three strike and your out” legislation the United States is locking individuals up at a rapid pace. With 1.75 million people currently in prison, we have increased our inmate population by a million people in the last four years (Three Strikes Rule, 2006). Under this legislation, the defendant would get a mandatory life sentence if the offender is convicted in federal court of a serious felony or have two prior convictions in state or federal courts. The offender receives 25 years to life in prison on the third strike if he or she is convicted of a serious violent felony. The prior two strikes could involve two or more prior convictions in federal or state court which one must include a serious violent felony and the other may be a serious drug conviction. California does not require the strikes to be violent or serious. Each States law varies, though under all federal and state “three-strike law” if a person is convicted of a crime three times, there is no judiciary discretion in sentencing the repeat offenders. This means that no matter what the judge feels would be the right punishment, the offender is sentenced to a mandatory sentence; in most states, that is 25 years to life without parole (Three Strikes Rule, 2006).
For what are these individuals under the repeat offender law serving time? Thirty-seven percent are serving time for crimes against a person, 30% for property crimes, 23% are drug crimes, and 10% are other crimes. Of the 37% of crimes against another person 15% of it is robbery with 12,728 individuals on their second strike and 3,277 on their third strike. The 30% of property crime 8% are 1st degree burglary and 6% are 2nd degree burglary and petty theft with no prior (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). As you can already start to see even though we have started to implement tougher legislation against repeat offenders, it has not necessarily stopped the increase in crime. It has started to hold steady and slightly decrease in certain states.
— Posted by: Brian L. on Tuesday, May 19, 2014 at 10:29am
And yes, that has come from…
This blog has just begun, following two or more serious criminal convictions for a number of violent crimes. The most recent conviction — of a New Orleans woman for stabbing a friend to death with a knife — came from a three-week assault. The state-sponsored Law on Criminal Offender Law, or SLER, does not have an enforcement component, which you can read about here. There are no specific laws specific to the criminal justice system. There are other methods for law enforcement in many states. But there is a law there. If you read the press release on the right, you will see that a law enforcement agency is actually an entity in which you and your partner and your family can live, enjoy life, and have legal custody of your kids and grandchildren. It is this law that gives you and your partner, at great risk of imprisonment and/or possible economic harm resulting, a right to privacy under criminal law in certain circumstances. This law has been passed in five states since 2006, which is quite a contrast to what was achieved in the earlier periods. We believe it should have been passed by a bipartisan group of Senators, who took the right steps toward doing just that in 2007. That group included Senators Dianne Feinstein, Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Boxer of California, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, and Bill Nelson of Florida… so all of these were committed to passing a law that would allow adults to protect their children and grandchildren while they were in prison and to protect private property or a person in need during this tough year of an American prison system. But I think what the legislation does is make it much harder for the young people going to jail than it is for an adult. And more difficult for many of them.”
To: Mike Haverford, President, United States Attorney Legal Services, National Domestic Relations & National Security Law Coalition; Kevin Finkle, Attorney, National Lawyers Guild; Mark L. Gifford, Senior Staff Attorney, National Domestic Relations & National Security Law Coalition; John H. Keim, Attorney, National Lawyers Guild; Jennifer K. Kimball, Counsel Specialist, Law Law Enforcement Association International; Mark V. Lantos, Senior Staff Attorney, National Association for Law Review; Mark S. MacBride, Legal Director, U.S. Attorney’s Offices of the Southern District of Illinois; Lisa MacDermid, Senior Staff Attorney, Southern District of Illinois Criminal Defense Center; Christopher M. Mack, Senior Staff Attorney, Criminal Justice
However, with the amount of inmates currently in prison do we need tougher legislation against individuals that commit first offense crimes? Let us look at these numbers to see where if that is the direction we want to go in. In 2002 there were 9,540 individuals convicted of armed robbery, the average length of incarceration for robbery was 91 months or just under 8 years (U.S. DOJ, 2005). However, if you add in parole the majority of these individuals were serving roughly 58 months in prison. If you look back at the “three strike rule,” you will notice that at least 15% of those individuals will end up committing the same offense. This does not mean that that the individual has been rehabilitated and will not commit a different crime once released. This is something else we must take into consideration. If we do not double the sentence length for armed robbery and we allow these individuals to go back onto the streets, he may commit a different crime and one far more serious and with grave consequences. That is why this bill has a lot of support right now from people in our community. The community feels that we are allowing too many convicted felons back into our community to commit additional crimes.
Most research has confirmed what many of us already expected, a small percentage of criminals are responsible for a large percentage of crimes. In Kentucky, courts have taken action to prevent repeat offenders from recommitting crimes after criminologist stated that 6% of criminal are responsible for 70% of crimes in America. This means that if we can identify this 6% we incarcerate the individuals for as long as possible; this would reduce the amount of crime happening in our community. In 1995, the Justice Cabinet in Fayette County, Kentucky funded a project called R.O.P.E. or Repeat Offender Prosecution Project. This project reveals that the criminal histories of these offenders have 7,480 prior convictions as a group with 10.3 convictions for each. Since the project started each year, the conviction rate has stayed in the 98th percentile. Individuals average sentences ranged from 7.6 years to 8.2 years for the repeat offenders, meaning that the county did not have to worry about these career criminal for that amount of time. What the county has noticed since the project has started is it seems to be making the community a better place to live. The fact that the county has had an increase of 75% of repeat offenders charged and prosecuted since 1996 is alarming (Office of the Fayette Commonwealths Attorney, 2006).
Now that we have established background on repeat offenders, will prolonging sentences for armed robbery convictions make a difference for the offenders? I feel that yes, if we increase the incarceration for the individuals it will get the individual off the street for a longer period, but will it make a difference on whether or not the individual repeats the crime? Probably not. There are too many facts to support the recommitting of the crimes by the individuals.
In my estimation from the research that has been conducted would I would have to propose an extended sentence without parole and while in prison, complete a job implementation program. After release, the individual would have to complete a rehabilitation process of different types of supervised community service. Since the national average for incarceration is 58, months