July 12, 2009
House hearing on "Mandatory Minimums and Unintended Consequences"
Though nearly all eyes this week will be on the Senate Judiciary Committee as the confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor get started, sentencing fans should be sure to take note of a hearing scheduled for Tuesday in the House. Specifically, as detailed here, on Tuesday morning the House Judiciary's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on "Mandatory Minimums and Unintended Consequences."
Though no official witness list has yet been posted, this item from FAMM indicates that FAMM president Julie Stewart is scheduled to testify. I hope and expect that some representative from the Department of Justice will also be testifying, though I am not quite sure what to hope and expect to hear from DOJ on mandatory minimums.
Though AG Holder recently gave a fairly progressive speech on criminal justice issues (details here), he has previously express at least modest support for some mandatory minimum sentencing laws. And, though President Obama has expressed concerns about mandatory minimums, his Administration has to date largely avoided expressly condemning or condoning such laws. Perhaps something consequential might get said by the DOJ rep at this upcoming hearing.
July 12, 2009 at 04:02 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference House hearing on "Mandatory Minimums and Unintended Consequences":
Yes. The unintended consequence is a 40% decrease in crime victimization. That must be corrected, as quickly as possible.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 12, 2009 6:00:56 PM
FAMM: "FAMM's national membership includes prisoners and their families, attorneys, judges, criminal justice experts and concerned citizens."
We need crime victims and their families to get the list of these enemies, and then bring direct action to their lives, just as their criminal relatives did to them.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 12, 2009 9:07:58 PM
"bring direct action to their lives"
How typical - an anonymous punk calling for OTHERS to engage in vigilantism but won't do it herself. I don't know if the writer is a bigger coward or a fool - it's a tossup.
Go out and whip some criminal ass, SC, instead of just whining all day in Doug's comment section. Show us out it's done.
Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | Jul 13, 2009 12:18:33 PM
Grits: It is happening already. Blacks have six times the murder rate as whites because they get no protection from the lawyer, the courts, the police. So, much of the disparity represents retaliation.
Are you upset by something? We are quietly discussing sentencing law and policy.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 13, 2009 11:19:12 PM
The list of witnesses is now available at the link to the committee website listed in the original post.
The list makes me less than sanguine that this was intended as a serious policy hearing, but I shall remain hopeful.
Posted by: Sarah | Jul 14, 2009 2:17:45 PM
sometime Sarah, all you can do is remain hopeful. Some though provoking points here- both in the original post, but especially in the comments.
Posted by: Deafness Claims | Dec 7, 2009 6:58:08 AM