On September 23, the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, was scheduled to consider a new bill that would add mandatory minimum sentences to many non-violent drug offenses. Here are two:

Anyone convicted in federal court of the crime of "enticing" someone "who has previously been enrolled in a drug treatment program" to "possess"
marijuana (by passing a joint, for instance) will receive a five-year mandatory minimum sentence.

In an editorial today, the Washington Post castigates Congress for continuing to stall passage of the DNA reform bill that was to be the Innocence Protection Act in a former incarnation.

YOU WOULDN'T think that what's left of Sen. Patrick J. Leahy's Innocence Protection Act could spark much controversy. A few years ago, when Mr. Leahy started pushing legislation to encourage post-conviction DNA testing at the state and federal level and improve the woeful quality of counsel in death penalty cases, the measure had real teeth. Now, however, compromise upon compromise has left the Innocence Protection Act, which has been merged with a bipartisan package with President Bush's initiative to reduce the backlog of physical evidence awaiting DNA testing, a shadow of its former self. The House passed the DNA legislation by a lopsided vote, 357 to 67, last year. Yet the Bush administration continues to oppose the Innocence Protection Act, and last week the Senate Judiciary Committee's conservative members, led by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), managed to stall the larger bill of which it is a part, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act. Though the committee is scheduled to continue marking up that bill today, and though it would clearly command majority support in the full Senate, it is far from clear that the bill will ultimately get to a vote.

TalkLeft does not support the renewal of the assault weapons ban. No matter how you view terrorism, the drug war or street violence, stripping citizens of 200 years of civil liberties is not the answer. However, if you disagree with us, then John Kerry is correct, you should be blaming Bush.

Democrat John Kerry rebuked President Bush on Monday for letting a ban on assault weapons expire and said his Republican rival paid for tax cuts by taking police off the streets and slashing anti-drug programs. The Democratic nominee, who will face Bush in the Nov. 2 election, said the president had chosen "his powerful and well-connected friends" in a secret deal with the gun lobby over the police officers and families he promised to protect.

This is pathetic. First, the Innocence Protection Act, which TalkLeft and others lobbied mightily for, was gutted to a shadow of its former self and renamed the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act. It passed the House 357 to 67 last November.

The bill got stalled in the Senate yesterday by Republicans objecting to the Innocence Protection Act provisions contained in the Act--despite the fact that victims, as well as innocence advocates, have been pushing hard for passage. The innocence provisions would allow inmates to obtain DNA testing to challenge their convictions and grant compensation to those inmates who prove they were factually innocent and wrongfully convicted. Currently, 151 inmates have been exonerated of the crimes of which they were convicted through DNA testing.

The bill in its current form provides far more benefits to crime victims than to wrongfully convicted inmates. Here's the disparity: $755 million is going to DNA testing of old rape kits in hopes of finding the perpetrator through a DNA databank, while only $25 million is allotted for the DNA testing of inmates with colorable factual innocence claims.

And yet, there are still objections to the bill. Shameful. As Senator Patrick Leahy said yesterday:

"Every day that the bill is stalled is another day that rape kits go untested for lack of funds; another day that inmates with colorable claims of innocence are denied access to the DNA evidence that could set them free and put the real criminals behind bars."

How tough is it to understand that DNA protects the innocent and identifies the guilty. if the wrong person is in jail, the real perpetrator is still out there, quite capable of striking again.

Alaskans will vote on whether to legalize marijuana for those over 21. Alaska would be the first state in the nation to fully legalize pot.

If approved, Alaska's Cannabis Decriminalization and Regulation Act would mandate that "persons 21 years or older shall not be prosecuted, be denied any right or privilege, nor be subject to criminal or civil penalties for the possession, cultivation, distribution, or consumption" of marijuana for medicinal, industrial or recreational purposes. The proposal also encourages the state legislature to establish a system to regulate pot "in a manner similar to alcohol or tobacco."

The San Francisco Chronicle has an editorial urging reform of California's notorious three-strikes law. [link fixed]

This November, voters will have an opportunity to reform the "three strikes" law. Proposition 66 will require that indeterminate life sentences only be handed out for violent or serious crimes.

....Thousands of inmates are serving life sentences for nonviolent crimes including shoplifting, writing bad checks and a range of drug-related offenses. That was not the intent of the law. Reform is urgently needed.

California Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer oppose the measure. The Chronicle responds:

by TChris

Keith Emerich told the doctor who was treating him for an irregular heartbeat that he drinks a six-pack a day. The doctor, apparently complying with a Pennsylvania law that "requires doctors to report any physical or mental impairments in patients that could compromise their ability to drive safely," told the Department of Transportation that Emerich has a substance abuse problem. The DOT responded by yanking Emerich's driver's license until Emerich can prove he's competent to drive.

Emerich has had a clean driving record for 23 years. He denies that he ever drinks and drives.

"What I do in the privacy of my own home is none of PennDOT's business," he said. ... "They want me to go to counseling to prove that I'm OK," Emerich said. "I tried to go to a place ... and they wanted $250 for a three-month program."

The physician-patient privilege is meant to encourage open communication between patients and their doctors. Requiring a doctor to breach that privilege by reporting a drinking problem to DOT can only discourage patients from being honest with their doctors.

It's been a while since we wrote about the LERA bill (short for "The Literacy, Education & Rehabilitation Act".) This is the bill that would increase good time for federal prisoners, shortening their sentences. More info on the bill is here.

The good news is LERA was finally introduced in the House on June 25, 2004. It is now H.R. 4752. Main thanks are due to the Federal Prison Policy Project and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA.) It is gaining support, but we need to keep the pressure on.

Please go here and sign the online Petition supporting LERA. The goal is 2 million signatures.

A few specifics:

If you're going to send only one e-mail this year to stop the war on medical marijuana users, now is the time. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment comes to the House floor for a vote on Wednesday, July 7. It will bar the U.S. Justice Department from raiding, arresting or prosecuting patients who use medical marijuana in compliance with state law.

Help bring these federal drug raids--and the resulting arrests and prosecutions-- to an end. Visit here and urge your U.S. Representative to support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment when it comes to the House floor for a vote this week. It will come up during consideration of the federal spending bill that funds the U.S. Justice Department (and the DEA). You must let your U.S. representative know that this vote is important to you.

Help Stop Feeney II! Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), a proponent of the notorious Feeney Amendment, has introduced legislation to further curtail the sentencing discretion of federal judges. A hearing is set for July 6. The "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act" (H.R. 4547) would:

• Establish draconion mandatory minimum sentences for drug distribution involving persons under 18 years of age. The sale of any quantity of any controlled substance (including anything greater than five grams of marijuana) by a person older than 21 to a person younger than 18 would be subject to a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence; persons 21 years or older convicted a second time of distributing drugs to a person under 18 or convicted a first time after a felony drug offense has become final would receive a mandatory life sentence.

We have railed several times against the "anti-gang bill", S. 1735, co-sponsored by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). (Here too.) So has the ACLU. Congressional Quarterly (subscription only) reports today it has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Durbin's and Kennedy's proposed Amendments, that would have ameliorated some of the worst aspects, have been rejected:

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation Thursday that would increase federal law enforcement’s role in cracking down on gang violence. The Committee voted 13-6 in favor of the bill (S 1735) that would make it a federal crime to participate in a “criminal street gang,” defined as three or more people who cooperate to commit two or more “gang crimes.” The bill would also authorize $650 million for gang prevention and suppression programs.

...The committee rejected 12-7 a substitute offered by Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., that would provide more money for witness protection programs, allow rural communities and smaller jurisdictions to apply for grants to combat gangs and not expand prosecution of juveniles as adults. “It’s a mistaken impression if we leave this room and say United States attorneys do not have existing laws to deal with gang crimes,” Durbin said. “What they need is our help with preventive funds.”

by TChris

Bad laws often seek cover in "feel good" names. So it is with Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2004 (Bill No. HR 4547). Masquerading as a law that champions drug treatment while protecting children, the bill is just another attempt to shift power from judges and the federal sentencing commission to federal prosecutors while implementing even harsher mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes: this time, for the distribution of drugs (including marijuana) to minors.

From an email describing the law:

For example, it would make the sale of any quantity of any controlled substance (including marijuana) by a person older than 21 to a person younger than 18 subject to a 5-year minimum mandatory sentence. The punishment for a second offense of underage marijuana distribution would be mandatory life imprisonment.

It creates new mandatory life sentences without possibility of release for a
variety of drug crimes, including virtually any federal drug conviction
following two prior felony drug convictions (including prior state felonies). It directly repeals most of the few guidelines provisions that the Commission has managed to pass over the last few years ameliorating the severity of federal drug laws for first-time and low-level offenders (including, for those who follow such things, the minor role cap).

This bill is the brainchild of Jim Sensenbrenner, who controls the House Judiciary Committee. Sensenbrenner worked hard for the passage of the Feeney Amendment, and he's likely to do everything he can to jam this one down the throats of Representatives with the expectation that they won't want to seem soft on drugs (or unsympathetic to children) in an election year.

Please tell your Congressman: Just Say No to Mandatory Minimums.