View Full Version : New Federal Bill pushes for new and tougher MM sentences; ACTION NEEDED!!!


kintml2u
06-29-2004, 05:59 PM
Action alert from FAMM today....important for all to write!

New federal bill pushes for new and tougher mandatory minimum sentences; action needed to stop bill from advancing

Dear FAMM member,

Last year many of you took action to stop the PROTECT Act, which sought to dramatically limit the discretion of federal judges to depart from the federal sentencing guidelines. Because of your letters and calls to Congress, you were part of the heroic work that saved judicial discretion to depart downward (lower sentences). The Feeney Amendment passed but was much less damaging than it might have been.

Now, we face a new threat to federal sentencing justice. A proponent of the Feeney Amendment, Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), has introduced H.R. 4547, called "Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2004." This bill pretends to protect children and people seeking treatment for drug addiction, but is chock-full of approaches that only serve to harm the families it is intended to protect.

Like the Feeney Amendment, H.R. 4547 increases sentences and decreases the power of judges and the U.S. Sentencing Commission by creating new mandatory sentences and increasing existing ones. But it goes even further, gutting the federal "safety-valve" for the lowest-level drug offenders and punishing defendants for the "relevant conduct" of co-conspirators that occurred BEFORE the defendant joined up.

As written, H.R. 4547 would:
- Make 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 subject to a ten-year federal mandatory minimum sentence.

- Mandate life in prison for 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.

- Increases to five years the federal mandatory minimum sentence for the sale of a controlled substance, of any type or quantity, within 1,000 feet of a school, college, public library, drug treatment facility (or any place where drug treatment, including classes, are held), or private or public daycare facilities -- in short, almost anywhere in cities across the U.S.

- Strip the federal "safety valve," granting it only when the government certifies that the defendant pled guilty to the most serious readily provable offense (the one that carries the longest sentence), and has "done everything possible to assist substantially in the investigation and prosecution of another person," and would prohibit the federal "safety-valve" in cases where drugs were distributed or possessed near a person under 18, where the defendant delayed his or her efforts to provide substantial assistance to the government, or provided false, misleading or incomplete information.

- Eliminate the mitigating role cap under the federal sentencing guidelines for minimal or minor drug offenders and prohibit the sentencing commission from reinstating the cap.

- Strengthen the use of relevant conduct to enhance a person's sentence by making the person accountable for the conduct of other members of the conspiracy that occurred before the person joined the conspiracy but was known by the person before joining.

Click here for the full analysis of H.R. 4547. (Note: File is in Adobe PDF format.)

For these reasons, FAMM opposes H.R. 4547. We are strategizing with our allies in the legal and legislative communities on a plan to defeat this bill. But even at this early stage, we need FAMM members to ACT NOW to stop this harmful bill. Although Congress will be recessing in a few weeks, Rep. Sensenbrenner is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee and therefore controls its agenda. It is possible that H.R. 4547 could be considered by the House Judiciary Committee before recess, so it is imperative that you call, write and if possible, meet with your federal representatives as soon as possible.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

- Take a minute now to e-mail your federal representative in opposition to H.R. 4547. This link takes you to FAMM's online action center, which contains suggested letters on this bill.

- Call your federal representative and tell the person who answers the telephone that you OPPOSE H.R. 4547. To find the name, telephone number and address of your federal representative, go to http://capwiz.com/famm/dbq/officials/ and enter your zipcode.

- Write a letter to your federal representative, using the suggested letter on FAMM's website, opposing H.R. 4547. Please send a copy of any responses you receive to FAMM.

- Face-to-face meetings with your federal representative and senators can be extremely influential. If you have a chance to attend a town hall meeting, a constituent get-together, or a political rally this summer where you can meet your federal lawmakers, PLEASE GO. Urge your representative to oppose mandatory sentencing laws and H.R. 4547.

H.R. 4547 is bad news, but FAMM is hopeful that we can stop it. Thank you in advance for contacting your federal lawmakers in opposition to H.R. 4547.

Sincerely yours,

Mary Price and Julie Stewart

FAMM

kintml2u
06-29-2004, 06:03 PM
FAMM allows this to be real easy for us!

If you go to this site, enter your zip code plus 4 digits, it will pull up your reps. From there...you can choose to email or LETTER (my thoughts, letters are better), enter your personal information and go from there. I always choose letter...print and mail it through the USPS. I feel best that way....but which ever way you choose...FAMM makes this easy as 1, 2, 3!!!!!

http://capwiz.com/famm/issues/alert/?alertid=6065531&type=CO


Next I will post the letter FAMM has with the link above.

kintml2u
06-29-2004, 06:04 PM
When using the site above, you will get the letter FAMM created which is as follows.

Re: H.R.4547

Dear Representative **********:

I just learned about a new bill, H.R. 4547, introduced by Rep. James Sensenbrenner. I strongly oppose this bill, which enacts new mandatory minimum sentences ‑ including life in prison for certain second offenses ‑ and senselessly increases existing ones, virtually eliminates sentencing relief for low‑level, first‑time, non‑violent offenders and further reduces judicial discretion to make the punishment fit the crime. H.R. 4547 is cruelly punitive, irrational and destructive. As your constituent, I urge you to oppose it.

H.R. 4547 is being promoted under the guise of protecting children. But the bill is chock‑full of policies that only serve to harm the families it is intended to protect. Like the Feeney Amendment, H.R. 4547 increases sentences and decreases the power of judges and the U.S. Sentencing Commission by creating new mandatory sentencing laws and increasing existing ones. But it goes even further, stripping the federal "safety‑valve" for the lowest‑level drug offenders and strengthening the use of "relevant conduct" against a federal defendant.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Rehnquist, Kennedy and Breyer have long voiced their strong opposition to mandatory sentencing laws. The new American Bar Association report calls for the repeal of mandatory sentencing laws. States across the nation are embracing smart‑on‑crime solutions that address the reality of a prison system packed with non‑violent and low‑level offenders, including substance abusers, disproportionate numbers of people of color and a rapidly growing population of women.

The federal government's approach on mandatory sentencing is out of step. Please oppose H.R. 4547. I look forward to hearing your views on this matter.

Sincerely,

not_unrealistic
06-30-2004, 12:07 AM
Great......I live in Wisconsin so my representative is Sensenbrenner. Will it do any good for me to write him????

kintml2u
06-30-2004, 05:19 AM
evil grin...I'd still write him but tell him how I truely feel!

Not that it would do any good.....but it might make me feel better.

not_unrealistic
07-01-2004, 02:01 PM
I've already written that b**** about mandatory minimums and told him how I feel and he's never even given me any kind of response, not even to let me know that he received my letter. I did, however, receive a letter in the mail the other day from one of the Wisconsin senators (Feingold) and he told me that he has long opposed mandatory minimums and that he is co-sponsoring the LERA bill. I was happy about that.

cjjack
07-01-2004, 02:05 PM
This is just sickening..................aren't things bad enough already?

I will definitely be writing some letters!!