analysis of Two current Pieces of legislation: SAFE Act vs. SRCA
My name is Adam Clausen and I am serving 213 years due to "stacked" 924c sentences. I would liked to take this opportunity to provide a brief comparative analysis of the federal sentencing and prison reform bills recently introduced by members of Congress. Hopefully my analysis helps to provide some clarity concerning the scope and potential impact of the two main bills currently being discussed; THE SAFE ACT and THE SENTENCING REFORM & CORRECTIONS ACT (SRCA). My analysis will be limited to these two bills.
Unlike many of the other individuals who have already critiqued these bills, I have read every single line of each one, multiple times. Not just the notes, but the actual bills; All 144 pages of the SAFE ACT, 141 pages of the Senate's version of the SRCA and the 18 pages of the House's version of the SRCA. Thus far, I have not heard any one person or organization adequately articulate the substance of each bill, so I will humbly attempt to do that now for the benefit of all those who are interested.
Let's begin with the Safe Act. This bill was written in direct response to the findings of the bipartisan "Over Criminalization Task Force" after they had completed a comprehensive eighteen month study. The bill squarely confronts a wide variety of systemic issues; All of them directly related to to our unusually high rate of recidivism. The clear intent of the SAFE Act is to reduce recidivism by implementing "evidence-based" programs at all levels of the criminal justice system. Included in this bill are annual assessments designed to provide short-term oversight, which in turn would help ensure more cost effective, positive program outcomes. Furthermore, the SAFE Act requires increased collaboration between all of the government agencies and community organizations involved within criminal justice system. This includes, but is not limited to: Federal Law Enforcement, United States Attorney's Offices, the Federal Bureau Of Prisons, Community Corrections Centers, United States Probation Departments, Community ReEntry Organizations and Non Profit Organizations. All of these various entities would be expected to coordinate their efforts to reduce recidivism in a more meaningful, productive and cost efficient manner.
The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, SRCA for short, is similar to the SAFE Act only in sheer number of pages, not content. The SRCA was constructed by a few Senior Legislators with no internal criminal justice system experience, nor was it based upon any relevant research in support thereof.
The SRCA, if enacted, would merely shift the prison industrial complex from secure remote facilities into primarily urban based community corrections centers. These reentry centers, or half way houses as they are more commonly known, have been a tremendous failure in reducing the rate of recidivism, yet this bill makes absolutely no attempt to improve the community corrections model, nor in the alternative, does it create some type of accountability for reentry program outcomes. If the SRCA is passed into law, this 80 billion dollar a year corrections industry will simply be passed from one hand to another, amongst the very same profiteers who have consistently reaped tremendous rewards for decades.
I find it incredibly ironic that Senator Grassley, the same man who just a few months ago proudly proclaimed himself to be "tough on crime" and in support of INCREASED mandatory minimums sentencing schemes, suddenly feels compelled to join OUR "sentencing reform movement?" His actions simply don't make much sense, at least not on the surface. I believe it's imperative for us to look more closely at these so-called "reforms," and to examine his motives for introducing this bill.
I believe that complete transparency is the best way to win widespread support for any plan and the SAFE Act has both clear content as well as intent. It's plain to see that the reforms spelled out within this would greatly reduce the federal prison population over time in a very smart and sensible manner. All of the reforms are based on the results of "smart on crime" initiatives that have already been implemented, and proven successful, by a number of state criminal justice systems throughout the country. It makes perfect sense for us to capitalize on the success found within each of those state systems, especially when you consider that the Federal Bureau Of Prisons has a current operating budget of nearly 7 billion dollars a year. I'd venture to say, based upon our unyielding rate of recidivism, that there hasn't been much "smart" use of taxpayer funding in quite some time. The SRCA basically maintains the status quo and, if enacted, it would do little to reduce the tremendous financial burden of mass incarceration on taxpayers.
At first glance, there actually appear to be a few similarities between the SAFE Act and the SRCA. Both bills call for improved substance abuse treatment for addicts. Both bills call for inmate "case plans" to be created, implemented, and tracked by the FBOP. And both bills call for increased Good Time Credits. But never has the old adage of "the devil is in the details" been more true. The disparities between these two bills quickly becomes apparent upon closer inspection of their Good Time Credit provisions.
The Safe Act allows almost anyone in the custody of the FBOP to earn up to 10 days of good time credit per month, and then deducts those earned days from the remaining term of incarceration. The SAFE Act also calls for the expanded availability of "one year sentence reductions" to be awarded upon the completion of comprehensive rehabilitative programs like the RDAP, Challenge Program, or other similarly structured evidence-based programs. The Safe Act's earned Good Time Credit provision gets "smart on crime" by literally saving billions of dollars and reuniting tens of thousands of families over the course of the next decade.
On the other hand, the SRCA's Good Time Credit provision affects only a fraction of the federal prison population, due to TWO FULL PAGES of exclusions. Only low level, low custody inmates will be eligible to earn the 5 days Good Time Credit per month, and even fewer of those qualified inmates will be eligible to earn the 5 additional days credit per month. The worst part of the SRCA's Good Time Credit provision is that it doesn't actually reduce the length of an inmate's sentence. Instead, it merely transfers the good time earned inside prison facilities, into more time spent inside community corrections centers. Clearly, this bill is not AT ALL what it appears to be on it's face, nor what others have proclaimed it to be.
The most troubling aspect of the SRCA is how it fails to provide meaningful relief to all those who have been subjected to mandatory minimum sentences under the 924c federal firearm statue. Although this bill initially reduces the super-enhanced "recidivist penalty" from 25 to 15 years, it then proceeds in the very next line to further EXPAND the recidivist provision to include any state prior conviction involving a firearm. So, instead of limiting the scope of 924c's enhanced penalties, the SRCA serves to greatly expand it. Of course a few may benefit from this change but too many individuals will remain buried under "death in prison" sentences. And how any more federal future firearm offenders will unknowing fall victim to the new "multiple stacked 15 year mandatory minimum sentences" created by the SRCA? Knowing this, how can we, as a community, choose to support this bill? There is another option.
The SAFE Act offers us a very simple solution by clarifying the "second or subsequent" language in 924c to ensure it ONLY applies to repeat federal offenders. Furthermore, Representative Scott's office has assured us there will be an annotation to the bill expressly prohibiting the "stacking" of 924c sentences...and that's something we can all come together to support.
So, how are we going to ensure that the SAFE Act is passed into law? Well, the first thing we need to do is contact our Representatives in both the House and the Senate, and let them know precisely what we want and expect from them. The best way for us to do this, is to explain to them, in our own words, why we want them to support the SAFE Act and NOT the SRCA.
If for any reason you cannot visit your Representatives, then your next best move is to call and speak to them personally. Be persistent. And if that option is simply not available, then a hand written letter or email will have to suffice. Please realize that this is a "once in a lifetime opportunity" to dramatically improve the entire criminal justice system, and we're quickly running out of time. This really is our chance to make a difference, but we must act NOW. Together we can make this happen if each and every one of us does our part. Let's get the SAFE Act passed and bring everyone home far sooner than expected.
Thank you in advance for your all of your effort and continued support. Much Love to ALL of you!
October 28, 2015
Unlike many of the other individuals who have already critiqued these bills, I have read every single line of each one, multiple times. Not just the notes, but the actual bills; All 144 pages of the SAFE ACT, 141 pages of the Senate's version of the SRCA and the 18 pages of the House's version of the SRCA. Thus far, I have not heard any one person or organization adequately articulate the substance of each bill, so I will humbly attempt to do that now for the benefit of all those who are interested.
Let's begin with the Safe Act. This bill was written in direct response to the findings of the bipartisan "Over Criminalization Task Force" after they had completed a comprehensive eighteen month study. The bill squarely confronts a wide variety of systemic issues; All of them directly related to to our unusually high rate of recidivism. The clear intent of the SAFE Act is to reduce recidivism by implementing "evidence-based" programs at all levels of the criminal justice system. Included in this bill are annual assessments designed to provide short-term oversight, which in turn would help ensure more cost effective, positive program outcomes. Furthermore, the SAFE Act requires increased collaboration between all of the government agencies and community organizations involved within criminal justice system. This includes, but is not limited to: Federal Law Enforcement, United States Attorney's Offices, the Federal Bureau Of Prisons, Community Corrections Centers, United States Probation Departments, Community ReEntry Organizations and Non Profit Organizations. All of these various entities would be expected to coordinate their efforts to reduce recidivism in a more meaningful, productive and cost efficient manner.
The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, SRCA for short, is similar to the SAFE Act only in sheer number of pages, not content. The SRCA was constructed by a few Senior Legislators with no internal criminal justice system experience, nor was it based upon any relevant research in support thereof.
The SRCA, if enacted, would merely shift the prison industrial complex from secure remote facilities into primarily urban based community corrections centers. These reentry centers, or half way houses as they are more commonly known, have been a tremendous failure in reducing the rate of recidivism, yet this bill makes absolutely no attempt to improve the community corrections model, nor in the alternative, does it create some type of accountability for reentry program outcomes. If the SRCA is passed into law, this 80 billion dollar a year corrections industry will simply be passed from one hand to another, amongst the very same profiteers who have consistently reaped tremendous rewards for decades.
I find it incredibly ironic that Senator Grassley, the same man who just a few months ago proudly proclaimed himself to be "tough on crime" and in support of INCREASED mandatory minimums sentencing schemes, suddenly feels compelled to join OUR "sentencing reform movement?" His actions simply don't make much sense, at least not on the surface. I believe it's imperative for us to look more closely at these so-called "reforms," and to examine his motives for introducing this bill.
I believe that complete transparency is the best way to win widespread support for any plan and the SAFE Act has both clear content as well as intent. It's plain to see that the reforms spelled out within this would greatly reduce the federal prison population over time in a very smart and sensible manner. All of the reforms are based on the results of "smart on crime" initiatives that have already been implemented, and proven successful, by a number of state criminal justice systems throughout the country. It makes perfect sense for us to capitalize on the success found within each of those state systems, especially when you consider that the Federal Bureau Of Prisons has a current operating budget of nearly 7 billion dollars a year. I'd venture to say, based upon our unyielding rate of recidivism, that there hasn't been much "smart" use of taxpayer funding in quite some time. The SRCA basically maintains the status quo and, if enacted, it would do little to reduce the tremendous financial burden of mass incarceration on taxpayers.
At first glance, there actually appear to be a few similarities between the SAFE Act and the SRCA. Both bills call for improved substance abuse treatment for addicts. Both bills call for inmate "case plans" to be created, implemented, and tracked by the FBOP. And both bills call for increased Good Time Credits. But never has the old adage of "the devil is in the details" been more true. The disparities between these two bills quickly becomes apparent upon closer inspection of their Good Time Credit provisions.
The Safe Act allows almost anyone in the custody of the FBOP to earn up to 10 days of good time credit per month, and then deducts those earned days from the remaining term of incarceration. The SAFE Act also calls for the expanded availability of "one year sentence reductions" to be awarded upon the completion of comprehensive rehabilitative programs like the RDAP, Challenge Program, or other similarly structured evidence-based programs. The Safe Act's earned Good Time Credit provision gets "smart on crime" by literally saving billions of dollars and reuniting tens of thousands of families over the course of the next decade.
On the other hand, the SRCA's Good Time Credit provision affects only a fraction of the federal prison population, due to TWO FULL PAGES of exclusions. Only low level, low custody inmates will be eligible to earn the 5 days Good Time Credit per month, and even fewer of those qualified inmates will be eligible to earn the 5 additional days credit per month. The worst part of the SRCA's Good Time Credit provision is that it doesn't actually reduce the length of an inmate's sentence. Instead, it merely transfers the good time earned inside prison facilities, into more time spent inside community corrections centers. Clearly, this bill is not AT ALL what it appears to be on it's face, nor what others have proclaimed it to be.
The most troubling aspect of the SRCA is how it fails to provide meaningful relief to all those who have been subjected to mandatory minimum sentences under the 924c federal firearm statue. Although this bill initially reduces the super-enhanced "recidivist penalty" from 25 to 15 years, it then proceeds in the very next line to further EXPAND the recidivist provision to include any state prior conviction involving a firearm. So, instead of limiting the scope of 924c's enhanced penalties, the SRCA serves to greatly expand it. Of course a few may benefit from this change but too many individuals will remain buried under "death in prison" sentences. And how any more federal future firearm offenders will unknowing fall victim to the new "multiple stacked 15 year mandatory minimum sentences" created by the SRCA? Knowing this, how can we, as a community, choose to support this bill? There is another option.
The SAFE Act offers us a very simple solution by clarifying the "second or subsequent" language in 924c to ensure it ONLY applies to repeat federal offenders. Furthermore, Representative Scott's office has assured us there will be an annotation to the bill expressly prohibiting the "stacking" of 924c sentences...and that's something we can all come together to support.
So, how are we going to ensure that the SAFE Act is passed into law? Well, the first thing we need to do is contact our Representatives in both the House and the Senate, and let them know precisely what we want and expect from them. The best way for us to do this, is to explain to them, in our own words, why we want them to support the SAFE Act and NOT the SRCA.
If for any reason you cannot visit your Representatives, then your next best move is to call and speak to them personally. Be persistent. And if that option is simply not available, then a hand written letter or email will have to suffice. Please realize that this is a "once in a lifetime opportunity" to dramatically improve the entire criminal justice system, and we're quickly running out of time. This really is our chance to make a difference, but we must act NOW. Together we can make this happen if each and every one of us does our part. Let's get the SAFE Act passed and bring everyone home far sooner than expected.
Thank you in advance for your all of your effort and continued support. Much Love to ALL of you!
October 28, 2015
ATTENTION! 924c Offenders
JULY 18, 2015 - WE'VE GOT SOME GREAT NEWS TO SHARE WITH YOU!
On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner publicly expressed his support for the SAFE Act. This is a HUGE win for all of us! Although the bill is sitting in the House Judiciary Committee it now seems likely to have enough support to make it out of the House. However, there is still much work that needs to be done before it can reach the President's desk. Once it clears the House it still must travel through the Senate where some challenges may await. In the meantime we need to build as much public and political support for this bill as possible. Representative Bobby Scott, co-author of the SAFE Act, has asked us for our help.
If you (or someone you know) were convicted of a "Non-Violent Drug Crime" and received a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence for the "use of a firearm" under Title 18 USC 924(c) but the firearm was NOT in your possession (on your person) at the time of your arrest, we need to hear from you.
Also, if you (or someone you know) were convicted of a "Non-Violent Drug Crime" and received a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence for "AIDING AND ABETTING THE USE OF A FIREARM" (that you did not actually possess yourself) under Title 18 USC 924(c) we need to hear from you as well.
If either situation occurred in your case we need to hear from you. Representative Scott's Office has asked us to collect the following information:
Please send your:
Name and Number
Federal District Court Case Number
Hometown and State
To:
Strong Prison Wives
PO Box 85
Gillette, NJ 07933
email: SPWFinfotainmentNetwork@gmail.com
Please don't be discouraged or disheartened if you have a crime of violence as this bill will apply to us as well. Right now, the way for us to build our support base is by highlighting those cases that show the greatest injustice with the least amount of political liability. Scott's office is committed to our cause and to the passage of this bill. Things are looking better and better every day! Take some time to smile and enjoy the good news! And then keep smiling as we get back to work building more support. We'll make it a real celebration once we're all home.
On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner publicly expressed his support for the SAFE Act. This is a HUGE win for all of us! Although the bill is sitting in the House Judiciary Committee it now seems likely to have enough support to make it out of the House. However, there is still much work that needs to be done before it can reach the President's desk. Once it clears the House it still must travel through the Senate where some challenges may await. In the meantime we need to build as much public and political support for this bill as possible. Representative Bobby Scott, co-author of the SAFE Act, has asked us for our help.
If you (or someone you know) were convicted of a "Non-Violent Drug Crime" and received a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence for the "use of a firearm" under Title 18 USC 924(c) but the firearm was NOT in your possession (on your person) at the time of your arrest, we need to hear from you.
Also, if you (or someone you know) were convicted of a "Non-Violent Drug Crime" and received a consecutive mandatory minimum sentence for "AIDING AND ABETTING THE USE OF A FIREARM" (that you did not actually possess yourself) under Title 18 USC 924(c) we need to hear from you as well.
If either situation occurred in your case we need to hear from you. Representative Scott's Office has asked us to collect the following information:
Please send your:
Name and Number
Federal District Court Case Number
Hometown and State
To:
Strong Prison Wives
PO Box 85
Gillette, NJ 07933
email: SPWFinfotainmentNetwork@gmail.com
Please don't be discouraged or disheartened if you have a crime of violence as this bill will apply to us as well. Right now, the way for us to build our support base is by highlighting those cases that show the greatest injustice with the least amount of political liability. Scott's office is committed to our cause and to the passage of this bill. Things are looking better and better every day! Take some time to smile and enjoy the good news! And then keep smiling as we get back to work building more support. We'll make it a real celebration once we're all home.
Mandatory minimum sentencing reform
Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing reform may have finally found a foothold in 2011. At the start of the year a report entitled "Smart On Crime: Recommendations for the Administration and Congress" was released to much fan fare from sentencing reform advocates across the nation. Outlined within that report was a specific recommendation for Congress to (finally) amend the "stacking provision" of the federal firearm statue 18 USC §924(c) so that it only applies to true recidivists.
The "stacking provision" amendment to §924(c) is of great personal interest because 205 years of my 213 year sentence are the result of that very perverse provision. This seemingly "logical and just" amendment has recently found a fair amount of support throughout the legal community. Now is the time when I most need your support for this amendment to be heard. This is your chance to "Speak Out" (Find your elected officials) and make a difference!
The "stacking provision" amendment to §924(c) is of great personal interest because 205 years of my 213 year sentence are the result of that very perverse provision. This seemingly "logical and just" amendment has recently found a fair amount of support throughout the legal community. Now is the time when I most need your support for this amendment to be heard. This is your chance to "Speak Out" (Find your elected officials) and make a difference!