First Step Act passes Senate; Cotton amendments rejected

Viewing 7 reply threads
  • Author
    • #50155 Reply

      By Nicholas Fandos . . . The Senate overwhelmingly approved on Tuesday the most substantial changes in a generation to the tough-on-crime prison and s
      [See the full post at: First Step Act passes Senate; Cotton amendments rejected]

    • #50167 Reply
      Ken Ackerman

      LISA – Legal Information Service Associates reports (link deleted, please see guidelines)
      “At the same time, the Senate adopted two amendments, one from Sen. James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), which permits faith-based groups participate in providing the recidivism-reducing programs envisioned by the bill, and another by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), which added a few specific offenses to the list of offenses excluded from early release and stripped judges of the right to make people with more than four Guidelines criminal history points eligible for the “safety valve” under 18 USC 3553(f).

      The Cotton-Kennedy amendment only needed a majority to pass, but none of the three sections even came close.”
      I have not been able to read the new bill as passed to see how it affects us but look forward when someone can report this. Of course, the House could still try to make changes. We will have to wait to see what the new year brings to our friends still in Federal prison waiting to see how it will affect them.

    • #50194 Reply

      People need to understand the two parties are still in negotiations between house and Senate and the process is being covered by C-SPAN. THIS BILL IS BEING DONE OUTSIDE OF REGULAR ORDER. Yesterday’s coverage featured Sen McConnell routinely waiving the public reading of potential amendments. He is providing political cover by doing so. I can not be convinced this is much of a deal for state convictions.

    • #50187 Reply

      Sex offenders are excluded from early release program.

      The act is 150 pages. 13 of those pages are ineligible crimes. None of which are white collar, embezzlement, tax fraud, abuse of power type crimes.

      After reading through exemptions I began to wonder what real changes will happen.
      Low level offenders get out a little earlier.

      At the federal level only…

      Those eligible can get 10 days for every 30 days served. That’s 4 months off per year.
      Then there’s day for day and good time too?
      With all 3 of those together? A 2 year sentence quickly turns into 4 months.

      Higher commissary spending limits. More options. To be determined by the prisons.

      Section on pregnant women in restraints.

      You can choose to be in a facility 500miles from your primary residence.

      A small section on Juveniles in solitary.

      Better access to email.

      I hope someone can explain what I’m missing. There’s a lot of fluff and praise about this act.
      It seems like a very small step.

      Im still happy for those whom can benefit from it.


    • #50215 Reply
      Marie Shook

      Is it really true that non-violent, no contact sexual offenders are not included in the First Step? My heart broke again.

    • #50229 Reply

      As someone entering prison in 2 weeks for possession of child pornography, I have found some conflicting information on who is excluded from First Step and am seeking clarification.

      From the FAMM website:
      Sexual exploitation of children (18 U.S.C. § 2251)

      Selling or buying children (18 U.S.C. § 2251A)

      Receipt or distribution of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1), (2), or (3))

      Second or subsequent conviction for possession, distribution,or sale of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1) through (6))

      However, From the revised version of First Step Act:
      Grassley, Durbin, Lee, Whitehouse, Graham, Booker, Scott, Leahy
      Ernst, Klobuchar, Moran, Coons

      Crimes Against Children Exclusion. Offenders who have committed serious crimes against children will not be able to shorten their sentences. This includes anyone convicted of child pornography offenses USC 2251, 2252, 2252A, 2260

      This latter would imply there is a blanket ban of any and all CP offenses.

      I welcome any of your thoughts.


      • #50275 Reply

        Glad you’re home for the holidays. My wife is in a support group with someone who got 5 years for CP when the prosecution was asking for 10. The judge also allowed him to stay home for a few more weeks.

    • #50250 Reply

      It sadly does appear that all sexual crimes involving children have been excluded. We are still trying to read through it ourselves but the only exception we have found is for early release of persons with sexual offenses IF they are elderly or infirm.

      This is very very unfortunate and disappointing, of course, for the constituency of NARSOL and other organizations fighting for civil rights of persons convicted of sexual offenses. That being said, we will still celebrate the bill’s passage (quietly) because, as the name implies, it is a step in the right direction. Anyone who has ever tried to work through a document with a big committee using consensus knows how painfully hard and slow it can be. Throw in comments and pressure from outside… (and I haven’t even mentioned politics!) and you can perhaps understand the effort it takes to get something like this through with even SOME of the original language.

      Thus, although we are deeply saddened that a sizeable chunk of “our” people have been missed, we still want to applaud the bill’s passage. We will just have to start building a grassroots lobbying effort for the NEXT one and make sure it doesn’t take ten more years!

      • #50471 Reply
        Ed C

        Brenda, your last sentence expresses my fear quite succinctly. I fear that politicians will adopt the attitude that they have addressed criminal justice reform, and don’t need to deal with it again. This is not a popular issue, nor one that wins elections. No politician was ever elected for being rational on crime. However, hope springs eternal.

    • #50425 Reply

      First steps are always positive if grounded in the right way. Now Brenda and others on here have the right frame in mind and yes to get true justice one has to press on. What gets me upset is profiling such as this black man at the double tree hotel that was asked to leave. So are law enforcement personal profiling sex offenders? Social standard are good and so is social justice or are we all criminals in some form or means. I sometimes wonder who uses true justice today in thought or deed. While justice is good if used in the right way denying others of liberty is not, but we all must remember not to use that liberty as a cloak of malice.
      Now prison reform is good or are we all prisoners of our own device. or are we lead astray by others. Sure this first step policy is good but the real goodness is what comes from the heart if it is genuie and true. Don’t get me wrong but offenses will come but if one is profiling against another in this legal battle of justice something is very wrong.

Viewing 7 reply threads
Reply To: First Step Act passes Senate; Cotton amendments rejected
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points provided that they stay on topic - keeping in mind...

  • *You must be 18 or older to comment.
  • *You must check the "I am not a robot" box and follow the recaptcha instructions.
  • *Your submission must be approved by a NARSOL moderator.
  • *Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • *Comments arguing about political or religious preferences will be deleted.
  • *Excessively long replies will be rejected, without explanation.
  • *Be polite and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • *Do not post in ALL CAPS.
  • *Stay on topic.
  • *Do not post contact information for yourself or another person.
  • *Please enter a name that does not contain links to other websites.

Your information:

<a href="" title="" rel="" target=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <pre class=""> <em> <strong> <del datetime="" cite=""> <ins datetime="" cite=""> <ul> <ol start=""> <li> <img src="" border="" alt="" height="" width="">