June 17, 2007
Might Congress move ahead with sound sentencing reforms?
In the two-plus years since Booker, Congress has been remarkable quiet on the sentencing front. Though there have been proposals for large and small sentencing reform from all quarters, Congress has shown relatively little interest in radically changing (or even seriously studying) post-Booker sentencing realities.
As documented here and here at FAMM, however, some members of Congress now appear interested in exploring possible sentencing reforms. Specifically, later this month brings these two notable congressional events (as described by FAMM):
- Summit on crime policy: On June 21, FAMM president Julie Stewart will testify at a federal summit on crime policy, "Violent Crime — Prevention and Solutions from the Experts." The summit is hosted by Representative Robert C. "Bobby" Scott, Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security House Judiciary Committee.
- Hearing on mandatory sentences: On June 26 at 10:00 a.m., the Subcommittee on Crime Terrorism and Homeland Security of the House Judiciary committee is holding a hearing that relates to federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws.
June 17, 2007 at 09:32 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Might Congress move ahead with sound sentencing reforms?:
The Booker case revealed that the 1984 sentencing scheme was responsible for the mandatory/adviseable sentencing guidelines. All prisoners have been sentenced contrary to the intent of the sentencing law, but prisoners cannot get relief due to retroactivity and time restraints. Is this a system that would continue the separation and destruction of homes for the sake of a "possible" flood on the courts if made retroactive? There is a solution, if you want one. Your mandatory laws are draconian! Money spent to continue large term incarcerations can be used for a better transition program. There must be a transition before release. This monster that has been created is full! Children must be reunited with their parents! Taxes must decrease! The public would support a solution for want a securer future, if only you would present one. Yes, they would also support continued incarceration, but only because you fail to offer a better solution. Give the public a choice. I can help.
Posted by: Richard Burk | Jun 26, 2007 10:40:01 AM
I am not an attorney. However, I've practiced post-conviction litigation since 1987, with several successful filings as a Pro Se litigant for other prisoners. I have taught post-conviction for over 10 years. Please add this information to my recent post dated 6-26-07 at 10:40am.
Posted by: Richard Burk | Jun 26, 2007 10:48:40 AM