Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

Last updated

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn Act to Control and Prevent Crime
Nicknames1994 Crime Bill
Enacted bythe 103rd United States Congress
Citations
Public law Pub. L.   103–322
Statutes at Large 108  Stat.   1796
Codification
Titles amended 12 U.S.C.: Banks and Banking

18 U.S.C.: Crimes and Criminal Procedure

42 U.S.C.: Public Health and Social Welfare
U.S.C. sections created 42 U.S.C. ch. 136
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the House as H.R. 3355 by Jack Brooks (D–TX) on October 26, 1993
  • Committee consideration by House Judiciary
  • Passed the House on November 3, 1993 (voice vote)
  • Passed the Senate on November 19, 1993 (95–4, in lieu of S. 1607)
  • Reported by the joint conference committee on August 10 and 21, 1994; agreed to by the House on August 21, 1994 (235–195) and by the Senate on August 25, 1994 (61–38)
  • Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly referred to as the 1994 Crime Bill, [1] or the Clinton Crime Bill, [2] is an Act of Congress dealing with crime and law enforcement; it became law in 1994. It is the largest crime bill in the history of the United States and consisted of 356 pages that provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers. [3] Sponsored by U.S. Representative Jack Brooks of Texas, [4] the bill was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. [5] Then-Senator Joe Biden of Delaware drafted the Senate version of the legislation in cooperation with the National Association of Police Organizations, also incorporating the Assault Weapons ban and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) with Senator Orrin Hatch. [6] [7]

Contents

The Violent Crime Prevention and Law Enforcement Act was first conceived by the government in the early 1990s, with Senator Joe Biden, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, playing a major role in drafting the law. Biden worked closely with law enforcement officials, especially the National Police Officers Association, due to his keenness to reduce crime and impose security and peace in the United States. Biden developed measures aimed at reducing crime by formulating some basic concepts on how to avoid crimes or punish criminals with severe penalties. He also added that when drafting the law, certain strategies should be used to help punish and rehabilitate prisoners. He also said that the National Association of Police Organizations played a major role in drafting the bill by formulating policies that were fully aligned with the priorities of law enforcement agencies across the United States. More deeply, the police, due to their many patrols in areas where crimes are rampant, helped reduce those risks because the police arrested a large percentage of drug dealers, gangs and criminals. The bill initially met with bipartisan criticism as it made its way through Congress. Republicans argued that the bill would provide significant funding for crime prevention programs that purported to be social rehabilitation, while drug treatment programs and youth crime initiatives could cost the state a lot of money but could be ineffective. They argued that punitive measures could be easier and more effective. [8]

Following the 101 California Street shooting, the 1993 Waco Siege, and other high-profile instances of violent crime, the Act expanded federal law in several ways. One of the most noted sections was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Other parts of the Act provided for a greatly expanded federal death penalty, new classes of individuals banned from possessing firearms, and a variety of new crimes defined in statutes relating to hate crimes, sex crimes, and gang-related crime. The bill also required states to establish registries for sexual offenders by September 1997.

Legislative history

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton sought to reposition the Democratic Party, which had previously been attacked as "soft on crime," as an advocate for "get-tough" policing strategies as well as investing in community policing. Federal funding for additional police and community policing were both priorities of the Democratic Leadership Council, of which Clinton was a member. [9] In an announcement that the New York Times described as "a page from the Republican playbook," Clinton said on July 23, 1992:

We cannot take our country back until we take our neighborhoods back. Four years ago this crime issue was used to divide America. I want to use it to unite America. I want to be tough on crime and good for civil rights. You can't have civil justice without order and safety. [10]

Clinton's platform, Putting People First, proposed to:

Fight crime by putting 100,000 new police officers on the streets. We will create a National Police Corps and offer unemployed veterans and active military personnel a chance to become law enforcement officers at home. We will also expand community policing, fund more drug treatment, and establish community boot camps to discipline first-time non-violent offenders. [11]

Liberal Democrats opposed the law because they were very concerned about the mandatory minimum sentences, especially since the law added the three-strikes rule, which meant a life sentence for criminals who were convicted of three violent or drug crimes, pointing out that this would lead to an increase in the prison population, especially in mass prisons, as this would lead to overcrowding. On the other hand, the negative effects that the law produced when it eliminated the Pell grants for prisoners, as this move was met with strong opposition from Democrats, who argued that education is a tool for rehabilitation, and that eliminating these grants would reduce educational opportunities for prisoners, which would reduce their chances of rehabilitation and reintegration into society again after imprisonment.

The law was widely criticized by politicians, pointing out that this law would increase the authority of the Federal government of the United States in matters of local law enforcement, which would have greatly affected marginalized communities, especially African American communities. Despite all the criticism that the law had gone through, it was passed in the House by voice vote on November 3, 1993, and passed in the Senate on November 19th by a vote of 95-4. One of the main reasons that the bill was eventually supported was due to the Congressional Black Caucus after their concerns of rising crime rates in their areas. [12]

A majority of the Congressional Black Caucus voted for the bill. [13] A Gallup survey in 1994 found that "58% of African Americans supported the crime bill, compared to 49% of white Americans." [14] However, a 1993 poll from USA Today, CNN, and Gallup found that "an overwhelming number of Blacks believed that the criminal justice system treated Blacks more harshly than whites." [15] Historian Michael Javen Fortner cites high crime rates as a likely cause of Black support of the bill as well as the bill's funding of crime prevention and rehabilitation programs. [16] In August 1994, President Clinton worked to increase Democratic support on the bill and met with three Caucus members who had previously opposed the bill, convincing them that the bill was the best it could be. [17]

Provisions

The Violent Crime Prevention and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is one of the largest anti-crime bills in the history of the United States, as it includes many provisions whose primary goal is to address crime and add public safety to the community. One of the important provisions included in the anti-crime law is to increase law enforcement through numerous fundings provided by the US government. Through this funding, approximately 100,000 new police officers have been hired nationwide. This is done through a program that offers community-oriented police services. It can be said that this program has expanded police efforts in the community and shaped the relationship between police officers and civilians to work together to eliminate or reduce crime. [18]

The anti-crime law also added a provision to expand the scope of federal crimes and penalties, as it introduced approximately 60 new crimes, indicating that these crimes require the death penalty, including terrorist murders, drug trafficking, and drive-by shootings, in addition to the three-strikes law. [12]

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

One of the important aspects of the law that caused a lot of controversy in the United States, especially in the government, is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which prohibited the manufacture, transfer, and possession of some types of automatic ghost firearms and high-velocity magazines for civilian use. This particular provision was met with great opposition from the police, so a clause was added to this provision to prohibit the circulation of weapons between civilians and persons who are not qualified to carry weapons. The duration of the sentence was 10 years and ended in 2004. The ban took effect September 13, 1994, and expired on September 13, 2004, by a sunset provision. Since the expiration date, there is no federal ban on the subject firearms or magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. [19]

Violence Against Women Act

There were a large number of women who were subjected to violence, so the US government added a provision, which is the Violence Against Women Act, as this law provided about 1.6 billion programs aimed at preventing and treating domestic violence and sexual violence that women are exposed to annually. It must be mentioned that this law also added provisions to establish centers for the psychological and physical rehabilitation of women to relieve them of the crises of rape and domestic violence, the main goal of this law is to treat the abuse that women are exposed to. Since the main reason for this law is to combat crimes by arresting criminals, as these strategies that have been taken have led to overcrowding in prisons, this has prompted the government to fund $9.7 billion to build new prisons. [20]

Part of VAWA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in United States v. Morrison (2000).

Federal Death Penalty Act

Title VI, the Federal Death Penalty Act, created 60 new death penalty offenses under 41 federal capital statutes, [21] for crimes related to acts of terrorism, non-homicidal narcotics offenses, murder of a federal law enforcement officer, civil rights-related murders, drive-by shootings resulting in death, the use of weapons of mass destruction resulting in death, and carjackings resulting in death.

The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing occurred a few months after this law came into effect, and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was passed in response, which further increased the federal death penalty. In 2001, Timothy McVeigh was executed for the murder of eight federal law enforcement agents under that title.

The Federal Death Penalty Act was declared unconstitutional in the case of U.S. v Quinones, ruling that the Act presented an "undue risk of executing innocent people". This decision was reversed on appeal, allowing its continued use. [22] However, the death penalty for non-homicidal crimes was abolished nationwide in 2008.

Elimination of higher education for inmates

One of the more controversial provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act overturned a section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 permitting prison inmates to receive a Pell Grant for higher education while they were incarcerated. The amendment is as follows:

(a) IN GENERAL- Section 401(b)(8) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)(8)) is amended to read as follows: (8) No basic grant shall be awarded under this subpart to any individual who is incarcerated in any Federal or State penal institution. [23]

The VCCLEA effectively eliminated the ability of lower-income prison inmates to receive college educations during their term of imprisonment, thus ensuring the education level of most inmates remains unimproved over the period of their incarceration. [24]

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, signed into law on December 27, 2020, restored the ability of incarcerated students to receive Pell Grants beginning July 1, 2023 [25]

Driver's Privacy Protection Act

Title XXX, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, governs the privacy and disclosure of personal information gathered by the states' Departments of Motor Vehicles. The law was passed in 1994; it was introduced by Jim Moran in 1992 after an increase in opponents of abortion rights using public driving license databases to track down and harass abortion providers and patients, most notably by both besieging Susan Wicklund's home for a month and following her daughter to school. [26]

Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act

Under Title XVII, [27] known as the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, guidelines were established for states to track sex offenders. [28] States had also been required to track sex offenders by confirming their place of residence annually for ten years after their release into the community or quarterly for the rest of their lives if the sex offender was convicted of a violent sex crime. [28] The Wetterling Act was later amended in 1996 with Megan's Law, which permanently required states to give public disclosure of sex offenders. [28] In 2006, the Wetterling Act's state registers was replaced with a federal register through the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. [29]

Community Oriented Policing Services

Since 1994, the COPS Office has provided $30 billion in assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies to help hire community policing officers. The COPS Office also funds the research and development of guides, tools and training, and provides technical assistance to police departments implementing community policing principles. [30] The law authorized the COPS Office to hire 100,000 more police officers to patrol the nation's streets. [31]

Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants Program

Title II of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 provided incentive grants to build and expand correctional facilities to qualifying states that enforced mandatory sentencing of 85% of a person's sentence conviction. [32] [33] "One purpose of theVOI/TIS incentive grants," the Bureau reported, "is to enable States to manage prison capacity by providing funds to increase prison beds for violent offenders." [34]

Other provisions

The Act authorized the initiation of "boot camps" for delinquent minors and allocated a substantial amount of money to build new prisons.

Fifty new federal offenses were added, including provisions making membership in gangs a crime. Some argued[ citation needed ] that these provisions violated the guarantee of freedom of association in the Bill of Rights. The Act did incorporate elements of H.R. 50 "Federal Bureau of Investigation First Amendment Protection Act of 1993" (into §2339A (c)) to prohibit investigations based purely on protected First Amendment activity, but this was effectively removed in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. [35]

The Act also generally prohibits individuals who have been convicted of a felony involving breach of trust from working in the business of insurance, unless they have received written consent from state regulators.

The Act also made drug testing mandatory for those serving on federal supervised release.

As a result of this Act, the Board decided that the Civil Rights Division should primarily control the work of internal affairs of Law Enforcements for possible reasons of bias, and as a precaution, the Internal Affairs member should cooperate with the Civil Rights Division as per the Council's resolution.

The Act prohibits "any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice ... that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States." (Title XXI, Subtitle D.) Subtitle D further requires the United States Department of Justice to issue an annual report on "the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers." Such reports have not been issued, however. [36]

The Act included a three-strikes provision addressing repeat offenders. [37]

The Act expanded the scope of required FBI data to include hate crimes based on disability, and the FBI began collecting data on disability bias crimes on January 1, 1997. [38]

Legacy and impacts

The 1994 Crime Bill marked a shift in the politics of crime and policing in the United States. Sociologist and criminologist William R. Kelly states that, "While the longer-term impact of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was questionable, the political impact was clear—crime control or 'tough on crime' became a bipartisan issue." [39]

Total, Violent, and Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Persons, 1970-2001 US Crime rates per capita 1970-2001, GAO Chart.png
Total, Violent, and Property Crime Rates per 100,000 Persons, 1970–2001

Bill Clinton has claimed credit for the reduction in crime rates in the 1990s, stating that, "Because of that bill we had a 25-year low in crime, a 33-year low in the murder rate, and because of that and the background-check law, we had a 46-year low in deaths of people by gun violence." [40] Crime rates underwent a long period of reduction in beginning in 1991 and declined by 26% during this eight-year period. [31] [41] The primary reasons for this reduction remain a topic of debate. [31] A study by the General Accounting Office found that grant funding from the Community Oriented Policing Services program supported the hiring of an estimated 17,000 additional officers in 2000, its peak year of impact, and increased additional employment by 89,000 officer-years from 1994 to 2001. This was an increase of 3% in the number of sworn officers in the United States. [42] The GAO concluded that the COPS Office potentially had a modest impact in reducing crime, contributing to an approximate 5% reduction in overall crime rates from 1993 to 2001. [41] A published study by criminologists John Worrell and Tomislav Kovandzic alleged that "COPS spending had little to no effect on crime." [43]

Total U.S. incarceration by year US incarceration timeline-clean.svg
Total U.S. incarceration by year

The Crime Bill has also become emblematic of a shift towards mass incarceration in the United States, although its contribution to the long-term trend of expanding prisons is debated. The Justice Policy Institute stated in 2008 that "the Clinton Administration's 'tough on crime' policies resulted in the largest increases in federal and state inmate populations of any president in American history". [44] Jeremy Travis, former director of the National Institute of Justice, described the truth-in-sentencing provisions of the law as a catalyst: "Here's the federal government coming in and saying we'll give you money if you punish people more severely, and 28 states and the District of Columbia followed the money and enacted stricter sentencing laws for violent offenses." [45] The Act may have had a minor effect on mass incarceration and prison expansion. [46] In 1998, twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia qualified for that Federal grant program. [32] Thirteen more states adopted truth-in-sentencing law applying to some crimes or with a lower percentage threshold. [34] By 1997, 69% of sentenced violent offenders were in states meeting the 85% "truth-in-sentencing" threshold and over 90% faced at least a 50% threshold. [34] The Bureau of Justice Statistics projected in 1999 that, "As a result of truth-in-sentencing practices, the State prison population is expected to increase through the incarceration of more offenders for longer periods of time," and found that the State prison population had "increased by 57%" to "a high of 1,075,052 inmates" while the number of people sentenced to prison each year was only up by 17%. [34] However, a GAO report found that federal incentives were "not a factor" in enacting truth in sentencing provisions in 12 of the 27 states that qualified, and "a key factor" in just four. [47]

The 1994 Crime Bill was also just one in a trend of crime-prevention actions taken by the federal government in the latter part of the 20th Century, with significant expansions of prison facilities and incarceration already being seen by the start of Clinton's first term in 1992. [48] Other government efforts cited as also contributing to the dramatic increase in prison population across the U.S. include the creation of the Drug Enforcement Administration under President Richard Nixon as part of his worldwide "war on drugs" campaign, and the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 under President Ronald Reagan. [49]

The legal system relied on plea bargains to minimize the increased case load. [50] Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton later expressed regret over the portions of the measure that led to increased prison population like the three strikes provision. [37] [51]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Megan's Law</span> United States federal law

Megan's Law is the name for a federal law in the United States requiring law enforcement authorities to make information available to the public regarding registered sex offenders. Laws were created in response to the murder of Megan Kanka. Federal Megan's Law was enacted as a subsection of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994, which merely required sex offenders to register with local law enforcement. Since only a few states required registration prior to Megan's death, the state-level legislation to bring states in compliance—with both the registration requirement of Jacob Wetterling Act and community notification required by federal Megan's Law—were crafted simultaneously and are often referred to as "Megan's Laws" of individual states. Thus, the federal Megan's Law refers to community notification, whereas state-level "Megan's Law" may refer to both sex offender registration and community notification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parole</span> Conditional release of a prisoner

Parole, also known as provisional release, supervised release, or being on paper, is a form of early release of a prison inmate where the prisoner agrees to abide by behavioral conditions, including checking-in with their designated parole officers, or else they may be rearrested and returned to prison.

Probation in criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by the court often in lieu of incarceration. In some jurisdictions, the term probation applies only to community sentences, such as suspended sentences. In others, probation also includes supervision of those conditionally released from prison on parole. An offender on probation is ordered to follow certain conditions set forth by the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer. During the period of probation, an offender faces the threat of being incarcerated if found breaking the rules set by the court or probation officer.

In the United States, habitual offender laws have been implemented since at least 1952, and are part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require a person who is convicted of an offense and who has one or two other previous serious convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole depending on the jurisdiction. The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those who continue to commit offenses after being convicted of one or two serious crimes.

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

Truth in sentencing (TIS) is a collection of different but related public policy stances on sentencing of those convicted of crimes in the justice system. In most contexts, it refers to policies and legislation that aim to abolish or curb parole so that convicts serve the period to which they have been sentenced. Truth in sentencing advocates relate such policies in terms of the public's right to know. They argue, for example, that it is deceptive to sentence an individual to "seven-to-nine years" and then release them after they have served only six years.

The U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System, also called the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, part of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, is the probation office of the federal judiciary of the United States. It serves the United States district courts in all 94 federal judicial districts nationwide and constitutes the community corrections arm of the Federal Judiciary. It administers probation and supervised release under United States federal law enforced by probation officers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crack epidemic in the United States</span> Drug epidemic in the 1980s and 1990s

The crack epidemic was a surge of crack cocaine use in major cities across the United States throughout the entirety of the 1980s and the early 1990s. This resulted in a number of social consequences, such as increasing crime and violence in American inner city neighborhoods, a resulting backlash in the form of tough on crime policies, and a massive spike in incarceration rates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act</span> U.S. federal statute

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is a federal statute that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on July 27, 2006. The Walsh Act organizes sex offenders into three tiers according to the crime committed, and mandates that Tier 3 offenders update their whereabouts every three months with lifetime registration requirements. Tier 2 offenders must update their whereabouts every six months with 25 years of registration, and Tier 1 offenders must update their whereabouts every year with 15 years of registration. Failure to register and update information is a felony under the law. States are required to publicly disclose information of Tier 2 and Tier 3 offenders, at minimum. It also contains civil commitment provisions for sexually dangerous people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Race in the United States criminal justice system</span>

Race in the United States criminal justice system refers to the unique experiences and disparities in the United States in regard to the policing and prosecuting of various races. There have been different outcomes for different racial groups in convicting and sentencing felons in the United States criminal justice system. Although prior arrests and criminal history is also a factor. Experts and analysts have debated the relative importance of different factors that have led to these disparities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice system of the Netherlands</span> Overview of criminal justice system in the Netherlands

The criminal justice system of the Netherlands is the system of practices and institutions of the Netherlands directed at upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, and sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts. The Netherlands' criminal code is based on the Napoleonic Code, imposed during the time of the French Empire. The Dutch largely kept the Napoleonic Code after their independence, but tempered it with a significantly more rehabilitative penological focus.

The War on Drugs is a term for the actions taken and legislation enacted by the US federal government, intended to reduce or eliminate the production, distribution, and use of illicit drugs. The War on Drugs began during the Nixon administration with the goal of reducing the supply of and demand for illegal drugs, but an ulterior racial motivation has been proposed. The War on Drugs has led to controversial legislation and policies, including mandatory minimum penalties and stop-and-frisk searches, which have been suggested to be carried out disproportionately against minorities. The effects of the War on Drugs are contentious, with some suggesting that it has created racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions, imprisonment, and rehabilitation. Others have criticized the methodology and the conclusions of such studies. In addition to disparities in enforcement, some claim that the collateral effects of the War on Drugs have established forms of structural violence, especially for minority communities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair Sentencing Act</span> A federal law in USA

The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 was an Act of Congress that was signed into federal law by United States President Barack Obama on August 3, 2010, that reduces the disparity between the amount of crack cocaine and powder cocaine needed to trigger certain federal criminal penalties from a 100:1 weight ratio to an 18:1 weight ratio and eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine, among other provisions. Similar bills were introduced in several U.S. Congresses before its passage in 2010, and courts had also acted to reduce the sentencing disparity prior to the bill's passage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alternatives to imprisonment</span> Types of punishment or treatment other than time in prison

The alternatives to imprisonment are types of punishment or treatment other than time in prison that can be given to a person who is convicted of committing a crime. Some of these are also known as alternative sanctions. Alternatives can take the form of fines, restorative justice, transformative justice or no punishment at all. Capital punishment, corporal punishment and electronic monitoring are also alternatives to imprisonment, but are not promoted by modern prison reform movements for decarceration due to them being carceral in nature.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Incarceration prevention in the United States</span> Methods to reduce prison populations in America

Incarceration prevention refers to a variety of methods aimed at reducing prison populations and costs while fostering enhanced social structures. Due to the nature of incarceration in the United States today caused by issues leading to increased incarceration rates, there are methods aimed at preventing the incarceration of at-risk populations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 36</span> Referendum changing the three-strikes law

Proposition 36, also titled A Change in the "Three Strikes Law" Initiative, was a California ballot measure that was passed in November 2012 to modify California's Three Strikes Law. The latter law punishes habitual offenders by establishing sentence escalation for crimes that were classified as "strikes", and requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 to life for a "third-strike offense."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 California Proposition 47</span> Reduction of some crimes to misdemeanours

Proposition 47, also known by its ballot title Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute, was a referendum passed by voters in the state of California on November 4, 2014. The measure was also referred to by its supporters as the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act. It recategorized some nonviolent offenses as misdemeanors, rather than felonies, as they had previously been categorized.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice reform in the United States</span> Reforms seeking to address structural issues in criminal justice systems of the United States

Criminal justice reform seeks to address structural issues in criminal justice systems such as racial profiling, police brutality, overcriminalization, mass incarceration, and recidivism. Reforms can take place at any point where the criminal justice system intervenes in citizens’ lives, including lawmaking, policing, sentencing and incarceration. Criminal justice reform can also address the collateral consequences of conviction, including disenfranchisement or lack of access to housing or employment, that may restrict the rights of individuals with criminal records.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Decarceration in the United States</span> Overview article

Decarceration in the United States involves government policies and community campaigns aimed at reducing the number of people held in custody or custodial supervision. Decarceration, the opposite of incarceration, also entails reducing the rate of imprisonment at the federal, state and municipal level. As of 2019, the US was home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners. Until the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. possessed the world's highest incarceration rate: 655 inmates for every 100,000 people, enough inmates to equal the populations of Philadelphia or Houston. The COVID-19 pandemic has reinvigorated the discussion surrounding decarceration as the spread of the virus poses a threat to the health of those incarcerated in prisons and detention centers where the ability to properly socially distance is limited. As a result of the push for decarceration in the wake of the pandemic, as of 2022, the incarceration rate in the United States declined to 505 per 100,000, resulting in the United States no longer having the highest incarceration rate in the world, but still remaining in the top five.

The BREATHE Act is a proposal for a federal omnibus bill, presented by the Electoral Justice Project of the Movement for Black Lives. The bill proposes to divest taxpayer dollars from policing and invest in alternate, community-based approaches to public safety.

References

  1. ↑ Kessler, Glenn (May 16, 2019). "Joe Biden's defense of the 1994 crime bill's role in mass incarcerations". The Washington Post . ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  2. ↑ Lussenhop, Jessica (April 18, 2016). "Why is Clinton crime bill so controversial?". BBC News . Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  3. ↑ "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994". National criminal justice reference service.
  4. ↑ Brooks, Jack B. (September 13, 1994). "H.R.3355 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994". U.S. Congress. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  5. ↑ "The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994". History, Art & Archives. US House of Representatives. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  6. ↑ Kranish, Michael (June 8, 2020). "Joe Biden let police groups write his crime bill. Now, his agenda has changed". Washington Post. Retrieved June 9, 2020.
  7. ↑ Law, Tara (September 12, 2019). "The Violence Against Women Act Was Signed 25 Years Ago. Here's How the Law Changed American Culture". Time . Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  8. ↑ 139 Cong.Rec. * (bound ed. Nov. 3, 1993) Rules suspended, debated and passed House (H.R. 3355, H.R. 3354, H.R. 3353, H.R. 3350); Motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3351 fails), available at ProQuest Legislative Insight. https://li.proquest.com/legislativeinsight/docview?id=CR-1993-1103-PL103-322-H&type=CONGRESSIONAL_RECORD&accountid=12924
  9. ↑ From, Al (December 3, 2013). The New Democrats and the Return to Power. St. Martin's Publishing Group. p. 198. ISBN   978-1-137-40144-1.
  10. ↑ Ifill, Gwen (July 24, 1992). "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Democrats; Clinton, in Houston Speech, Assails Bush on Crime Issue". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved June 9, 2020.
  11. ↑ Clinton, Bill (June 21, 1992). "PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST: A NATIONAL ECONOMIC STRATEGY FOR AMERICA".
  12. 1 2 139 Cong.Rec. * (bound ed. Nov. 8, 1993) Debated in Senate (S. 1607)), available at ProQuest Legislative Insight. https://li.proquest.com/legislativeinsight/docview?id=CR-1993-1108-PL103-322-S&type=CONGRESSIONAL_RECORD&accountid=12924
  13. ↑ "Analysis: Black Leaders Supported Clinton's Crime Bill". NBC News. April 8, 2016. Retrieved June 17, 2022.
  14. ↑ Galston, Rashawn Ray and William A. (August 28, 2020). "Did the 1994 crime bill cause mass incarceration?". Brookings. Retrieved June 17, 2022.
  15. ↑ Fortner, Michael Javen (October 1, 2020). "Reconstructing Justice: Race, Generational Divides, and the Fight Over "Defund the Police"". Niskanen Center: 11.
  16. ↑ "The Clintons Aren't the Only Ones to Blame for the Crime Bill". The Marshall Project. October 7, 2015. Retrieved June 17, 2022.
  17. ↑ Hosler, Karen (August 18, 1994). "Black Caucus yields on crime bill". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved June 17, 2022.
  18. ↑ Hearing on Domestic Violence, Hearing Before the Committee on Judiciary. Senate, 103rd Cong. (1993), available at ProQuest Legislative Insight. https://li.proquest.com/legislativeinsight/docview?id=HRG-1993-SJS-0008&type=HEARING&accountid=12924
  19. ↑ Assault Weapons: A View from the Front Lines, Hearing Before the Committee on Judiciary. Senate, 103rd Cong. (1993), available at ProQuest Legislative Insight. https://li.proquest.com/legislativeinsight/docview?id=HRG-1993-SJS-0016&type=HEARING&accountid=12924
  20. ↑ Violent Crimes Against Women, Hearing Before the Committee on Judiciary. Senate, 103rd Cong. (1993), available at ProQuest Legislative Insight. https://li.proquest.com/legislativeinsight/docview?id=HRG-1993-SJS-0015&type=HEARING&accountid=12924
  21. ↑ "The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994". Office of the United States Attorneys. Department of Justice. Retrieved May 17, 2013.
  22. ↑ Wrongful Conviction. Temple University Press. 2008. ISBN   9781592136452. JSTOR   j.ctt14btc21 . Retrieved August 6, 2021.{{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  23. ↑ "H. R. 1168". Bulk.Resource.Org.
  24. ↑ "Education as Crime Prevention: The Case for Reinstating Pell Grant Eligibility for the Incarcerated" (PDF). Bard Prison Initiative. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 27, 2007.
  25. ↑ "Eligibility of Confined or Incarcerated Individuals to Receive Pell Grants | Knowledge Center".
  26. ↑ Miller, Michael W. (August 25, 1992). "Information Age: Debate Mounts Over Disclosure Of Driver Data". Wall Street Journal.
  27. ↑ "42 U.S. Code § 14071 to 14073 - Repealed. Pub. L. 109–248, title I, § 129(a), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 600". LII / Legal Information Institute.
  28. 1 2 3 "Legislative History - SMART Office". SMART website - Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART). Archived from the original on May 13, 2020. Retrieved June 15, 2019.
  29. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 10, 2015. Retrieved September 6, 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  30. ↑ "COPS History". Community Oriented Policing Services.
  31. 1 2 3 "Bill Clinton's claim that 100,000 cops sent the crime rate 'way down' - The Washington Post". The Washington Post .
  32. 1 2 103rd Congress (1993-1994) (September 13, 1994). "H.R.3355 - Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994". congress.gov. Retrieved February 15, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  33. ↑ Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons" (PDF). Bureau of Justice Statistics. p. 3. Retrieved February 15, 2020.
  34. 1 2 3 4 Bureau of Justice Statistics (January 1999). Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons (PDF) (Report). NCJ 170032. Retrieved June 9, 2020.
  35. ↑ Dempsey, James; Cole, David (2006). Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties In The Name Of National Security (Scribd Online ed.). New York: New Press. p. 63. Retrieved September 9, 2015.
  36. ↑ Serpico, Frank (October 23, 2014). "The Police Are Still Out of Control". Politico Magazine : 2. Retrieved June 2, 2015.
  37. 1 2 Vara, Vauhini (November 7, 2014). "Will California Again Lead the Way on Prison Reform?". The New Yorker. Retrieved November 10, 2014.
  38. ↑ "Hate crime statistics 1996" (PDF). CJIS . Archived from the original (PDF) on July 9, 2007. Retrieved December 10, 2009.
  39. ↑ Kelly, William R. (2015). Criminal Justice at the Crossroads: Transforming Crime and Punishment. Columbia University Press. p. 29. ISBN   978-0-231-53922-7.
  40. ↑ Terruso, Julia; Lubrano, Alfred (April 7, 2016). "Bill Clinton stumps for Hillary in Philly - and parries with protesters". Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved June 9, 2020.
  41. 1 2 Ekstrand, Laurie E.; Kingsbury, Nancy R. (March 2006). Community Policing Grants: Cops Grants Were a Modest Contributor to Declines in Crime in The 1990s. DIANE Publishing. p. 14. ISBN   978-1-4223-0454-9.
  42. ↑ Ekstrand, Laurie E.; Kingsbury, Nancy R. (March 2006). Community Policing Grants: Cops Grants Were a Modest Contributor to Declines in Crime in The 1990s. DIANE Publishing. p. 89. ISBN   978-1-4223-0454-9.
  43. ↑ Worrall, John L.; Kovandzic, Tomislav V. (February 2007). "COPS grants and crime revisited". Criminology. 45 (1): 159–190. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00075.x.
  44. ↑ "Clinton Crime Agenda Ignores Proven Methods for Reducing Crime" (Press release). Justice Policy Institute. April 14, 2008. Retrieved October 17, 2020.
  45. ↑ "20 Years Later, Parts Of Major Crime Bill Viewed As Terrible Mistake". NPR.org. Retrieved June 9, 2020.
  46. ↑ "The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained". Vox. June 20, 2019.
  47. ↑ US General Accounting Office (1998). Truth in Sentencing: Availability of Federal Grants Influenced Laws in Some States. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
  48. ↑ Darryl K. Gilliard (May 1993). Prisoners in 1992 (PDF) (Report). Bureau of Justice Statistics. p. 1. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  49. ↑ "From 1990-2005, the U.S. Built a Prison Every 10 Days - Here's Why". InterrogatingJustice.org. April 2021. Retrieved June 27, 2024.
  50. ↑ Rohrlich, Justin (November 10, 2014). "Why Are There Up to 120,000 Innocent People in US Prisons?". VICE news. Retrieved November 10, 2014.
  51. ↑ Hunt, Kasie (October 8, 2014). "Bill Clinton: Prison sentences to take center stage in 2016". MSNBC. Retrieved June 2, 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.