The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

More documents

Recommendations

Info

programmes "designed with significant input from experienced police officers", however, the bulk of the funds were dedicated to measures that are seen as punitive rather than rehabilitative or preventative. 2. Why was it passed and who supported it? At the time, violent crime was seen as out of control in the US. Starting in 1987, the homicide rate in the US was increasing by 5% each year, peaking in 1991 with 9.8 deaths per every 100,000 people. Many of those victims were young African Americans. Robbery and assault rates had exploded beginning in the late 1960s, and the crack cocaine epidemic was devastating the nation's urban centres. The bill had bipartisan support, and easily passed both the House and Senate. The Clintons have pointed out that both black politicians and community leaders backed the law, and in general supported increased law enforcement in order to help quell street violence destroying communities. But a recent New York Times op-ed calls this a "selective hearing" of what African American leaders were asking for and points out that members of the Congressional Black Caucus asked for provisions in the bill that were left out. "Policy makers pointed to black support for greater punishment and surveillance, without recognizing accompanying demands to redirect power and economic resources to low-income minority communities," according to the piece, written by three Ivy League professors of history and African American studies. "When blacks ask for better policing, legislators tend to hear more instead." 3. Did it cause mass incarceration? No. But many believe that it may have amplified effects that were already under way. Historians point out that there had already been decades worth of punitive crime control laws that ramped up the rate of incarceration in the US, including the Ronald Reagan Anti-Drug Abuse Acts which established mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession, or Lyndon Johnson's Safe Streets Act of 1968, which increased the flow of federal money to local and state police. Many pieces of punitive crime legislation predated the 1994 bill, on the federal, state and local levels. The prison population had tripled in the two decades that preceded the act. "The feds are very much a reactor in criminal law, not a creator. Much of this was already well under way," says John Pfaff, professor of law at Fordham University, who argues the actions of local prosecutors are a better starting point when tracing the roots of mass incarceration. Page 20 of 190
The 1994 crime bill's sentencing guidelines also only applied to those charged with federal crimes. The vast majority - an estimated 87% - of the country's prison population is housed in state prisons. However, in the 22 years since the bill was passed, the federal prison population more than doubled. In 1994, the Bureau of Prisons held 95,162 inmates; today that number is 214,149. The bill did attempt to incentivise states to pass tougher sentencing laws by offering up additional federal dollars, but Pfaff says only a handful of states took advantage of that. At minimum, says Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, the bill reinforced the popular thinking that the solution to crime was harsher punishments. "This was a national bill, it got an enormous amount of attention at the time," he says. "I think it very much helped to solidify the 'tough on crime' movement." 4. Did it cause the precipitous decline in crime that began in the 1990s? Page 21 of 190
Page 2 and 3: Page 2 of 190
Page 10 and 11: 4. Throughout the process, we encou
Page 16 and 17: 1 Timothy 3:2-3 2 Now the overseer
Page 18 and 19: This work is not meant to be a piec
Page 22 and 23: Mr Clinton said at one point the 19
Page 26 and 27: The expression "Three strikes and y
Page 28 and 29: was, depending on the source cited,
Page 30 and 31: sentencing was considered so signif
Page 32 and 33: to overturning the three-strikes bi
Page 34 and 35: The second relates to the severity
Page 36 and 37: Religious Basis The history of puni
Page 38 and 39: potential pain associated with comm
Page 40 and 41: criminal justice system in itself p
Page 44 and 45: een applied to the states. On Febru
Page 46 and 47: ailable and non-bailable offenses w
Page 48 and 49: Austin v. United States In Austin v
Page 50 and 51: The "essential predicate" is "that
Page 52 and 53: The Court held that in the circumst
Page 54 and 55: Punishments Specifically Allowed In
Page 56 and 57: Professor Stinneford asserts that t
Page 58 and 59: without first punishing them suffic
Page 60 and 61: acknowledgment. Which further led t
Page 62 and 63: unfamiliar with the penal systems i
Page 64 and 65: In pre-1833 France, before jury wer
Page 66 and 67: imprisonment (for a person aged 16-
Page 68 and 69: percent in fiscal year 2000, 42.5 p
Page 70 and 71:
Morton Berger - 200 years without p
Page 72 and 73:
The practice of imposing longer pri
Page 74 and 75:
The Australian Capital Territory, Q
Page 76 and 77:
committee viewed that the act was a
Page 78 and 79:
In the US on March 5, 2003, the U.S
Page 80 and 81:
the Guidelines are now considered a
Page 82 and 83:
United States v. Booker Though the
Page 84 and 85:
In 2010, the U.S. Sentencing Commis
Page 86 and 87:
Physical Injury (§5K2.2) If signif
Page 88 and 89:
the circumstances are unusual the g
Page 90 and 91:
Coercion and Duress (§5K2.12) If t
Page 92 and 93:
established. In such cases, it is e
Page 94 and 95:
any other reason; and (2) that did
Page 96 and 97:
10 6-12 8-14 10-16 15-21 21-27 24-3
Page 98 and 99:
Page 98 of 190
Page 100 and 101:
Notes _____________________________
Page 102 and 103:
Page 102 of 190
Page 104 and 105:
Page 104 of 190
Page 106 and 107:
Page 106 of 190
Page 108 and 109:
Page 108 of 190
Page 110 and 111:
Page 110 of 190
Page 112 and 113:
Page 112 of 190
Page 114 and 115:
Page 114 of 190
Page 116 and 117:
Page 116 of 190
Page 118 and 119:
Page 118 of 190
Page 120 and 121:
Page 120 of 190
Page 122 and 123:
Page 122 of 190
Page 124 and 125:
Page 124 of 190
Page 126 and 127:
Page 126 of 190
Page 128 and 129:
Page 128 of 190
Page 130 and 131:
Page 130 of 190
Page 132 and 133:
Page 132 of 190
Page 134 and 135:
Page 134 of 190
Page 136 and 137:
Page 136 of 190
Page 138 and 139:
Page 138 of 190
Page 140 and 141:
Page 140 of 190
Page 142 and 143:
Page 142 of 190
Page 144 and 145:
Page 144 of 190
Page 146 and 147:
Page 146 of 190
Page 148 and 149:
Page 148 of 190
Page 150 and 151:
Page 150 of 190
Page 152 and 153:
Page 152 of 190
Page 154 and 155:
Page 154 of 190
Page 156 and 157:
Page 156 of 190
Page 158 and 159:
Page 158 of 190
Page 160 and 161:
Page 160 of 190
Page 162 and 163:
Page 162 of 190
Page 164 and 165:
Page 164 of 190
Page 166 and 167:
Advocacy Foundation Publishers The
Page 168 and 169:
XVI for Drug-Free Communities Landm
Page 170 and 171:
Vol. VIII 2022 ComeUnity ReEngineer
Page 172 and 173:
Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitaliz
Page 174 and 175:
The e-Advocate Monthly Review 2018
Page 176 and 177:
2021 Biblically Responsible Investi
Page 178 and 179:
The e-Advocate Quarterly Special Ed
Page 180 and 181:
Legal Missions International Page 1
Page 182 and 183:
Vol. V 2019 XVII Russia Q-1 2019 XV
Page 184 and 185:
The e-Advocate Newsletter Genesis o
Page 186 and 187:
Extras The Nonprofit Advisors Group
Page 188 and 189:
About The Author John C (Jack) John
Page 190:
Page 190 of 190
show all

The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?