Democrats in the legislature are using their outsized majority this session to elevate felons into the latest aggrieved minority in their electoral coalition of celebrated victim groups.
Senate Democrats, posing as fiscally responsible, introduced a bill to require detailed fiscal notes on proposed legislation ... but only on bills that would increase prison terms. House Democrats have introduced a raft of bills to make life easier for robbers and rapists.
Legislative Republicans are responding with a "Families Before Felons" rally at noon Wednesday on the state Capitol steps.
The House Democrats felon-friendly bills:
HB 1003 - "culturally appropriate, sensitive" oversight of prison rape.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 07, 2007 06:31 AM | Email This
HB 1004 - prohibits the accrual of interest on financial obligations while the offender is incarcerated
HB 1473 - Restoration of felons rights to vote
HB 1474 - Lowers the interest rate on felons legal financial obligations (a disincentive to pay reparations)
HB 1518 - Death penalty stay and task force - puts a stay on death sentences until July 2008 pending a study.
HB 1691 - Deferred prosecution - Allows community treatment in lieu of confinement
HB 1729 - Expands earned early release - Allows offenders to serve last 12 months in partial confinement (currently 6 mos)
HB 1874 - Re-entry of offenders - among other things, it allows offenders to serve last 12 months in partial confinement
HB 2069 - Partial confinement - also allows offenders to serve last 12 months in partial confinement
Ivan will post as soon as he finds a way to blame Bush and the war in Iraq.
Posted by: Jeffro on February 7, 2007 08:25 AMI ended up raising his kids and a good thing, too, because he was always claiming he couldn't pay child support, wink, wink.
I don't think these bills help out the victims at all.
Posted by: swatter on February 7, 2007 08:40 AMI don't know the details or justification of the other bills, but Stefan's off to a bad start on the first.
Posted by: Bruce on February 7, 2007 08:43 AMAfter all, TOO FREAKIN' BAD if somebody contracts STD's in prison.
If you're too stupid to stay OUT of prison, you deserve EVERYTHING you get (or catch)!!
Don't like losing your arm? Don't stick it in the meat grinder!!
DUHHHH!!
Posted by: BRC on February 7, 2007 08:55 AMAs for HB-1003, if the prisoners come in with ANY disease, or contract ANY disease in prison, why wouldn't we work on reducing the rate of disease regardless of what the disease is? Why do we need a law for a specific set of diseases along with all the additional spending and bureacracy that comes with it?
As for prisoners contracting or communicating diseases while in prison, in the interest of their health, any activities that spread disease should be identified and reduced (or eliminated) - regardless of the disease.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 7, 2007 10:42 AMIvan will post when he has something to say.
Posted by: ivan on February 7, 2007 11:35 AM"Year of da Felon!" Yo, its abouts time, no puns intended. And I'd thoughts it was the year of da year of the "BORE-GORE", go figure.
Forgetaboutit
I wish.
Ivan regularly posts when he has nothing to say. (Nothing intelligent that is)
Posted by: swassociates on February 7, 2007 01:26 PMApparently it's worked if the Democrats are getting that many votes in Wash. State.
Posted by: logipundit on February 7, 2007 04:02 PMWe only have a criminal advocacy system.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on February 7, 2007 04:44 PMDeterrence is a major goal of prison, but not the only goal. Another goal is rehabilitation -- releasing someone who can be a productive member of society, or, failing that, at least not a great danger or burden. And we want to minimize costs of running the prison. The bill to prevent STDs, for example, potentially addresses all these needs. I have no idea whether that bill (or the others) is necessary or good policy. But your "analysis" (sound bite, really) is way too simplistic.
Posted by: Bruce on February 7, 2007 04:45 PMLook at some of the co-sponsors of these bills. I don't think you'll be surprised by some of the names who make up the list. Names that repeat over and over again on pro convict legislation are reps that can do whatever they want without any fear of voter retribution because they are from districts that are sooo blue.
Sad state of affairs... Any piece of legislation that makes it easier for criminals is a slap in the face for all who have been victims of crime and those who follow the law. Simple as that! These Reps ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Yea Bruce tell that to the three officers families who were recently killed by early released convicts.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on February 7, 2007 05:01 PMI never said we should release anyone early, and of course some people should be in prison for life. But the vast majority of people in prison will be released eventually. Are you saying that every felony -- and every misdemeanor that results in prison time -- should result in a life sentence without parole (or death)? Not even the most crazed wingnut would propose keeping more than a tiny fraction of inmates in prison for life. These people are going to be in society again, living and walking in our neighborhoods and either paying taxes or getting government support. And if they are released with STDs, (a) we will pay for their medical care in prison and thereafter if they're poor, (b) they will spread their disease when they get out.
Did I really need to explain that? Sheesh.
Posted by: Bruce on February 7, 2007 06:28 PMI would love to look at things from your point of view, but I just can't get my head...sorry kidding...seriously, it's just laughable to me, unfortunately, that these sort of bills could alleviate criminal activity.
I DO believe it's possible to support a law because it's good policy, but I do not believe these laws are good policy, so my simplistic mind then thinks, "Well these guys can't be THAT dumb, so they must push for these laws for a reason." And the only other reason is politics. It's the nature of it I guess.
So Bruce, do you feel I have simply grown cynical...jaded...oblivious to the noble motives of well-meaning legislators?
Thanks for the note, though.
Posted by: logipundit on February 7, 2007 06:52 PMHow many bills are there which support the victims?
Posted by: CrazyFool in Lynnwood on February 7, 2007 07:52 PMAgain, I know nothing about these bills so I can't say they're good or bad -- just that we should look at all their pros and cons in the context of the real world. I don't agree with all the posters here, but I can understand what they're saying and why. By contrast, most posters in this thread are either uninterested in or incapable of understanding the goals of these bills. Instead they make unfounded assumptions about the motives of the legislators and then criticize these strawmen.
Hey, I can't force anyone to think, but I question why someone would waste their time on this site if they only want to learn what they already know.
Posted by: Bruce on February 7, 2007 09:40 PMThank you for your posts. I appreciate your desire for thoughtful debate and would have enjoyed the same from the opposition.
Posted by: redkittyred on February 7, 2007 10:35 PMSome emergency.
Posted by: mark on February 7, 2007 10:42 PMIncidence of rape is not as high not as reported as the media and the Vera Institute (check out the agenda behind the agenda of that group and who funds that far-left think tank that is slowly taking over correction policy and quite a number of liberal legislators across the nation) would like the public to believe.
This entire Hug-a-Thug movement is based on what that think tank is pushing.
Slowly, they are inserting most of the concepts and themes of the bills the Dems are introducing about prisons and sentences, not only here but throughout the country.
It is only a matter of time where a work release will be placed in your neighborhood and felony sentences will be extremely reduced.
At least the R's have introduced HB2084. A small attempt to slow down this liberalization of felony sentencing.
Posted by: gudgeon on February 8, 2007 06:24 AMThe "lock em up & throw away the key" approach was understandable after the rediculous liberal excesses of the 60's & 70's, But we are probably past the carrying capacity of incarceration as it is. And a lot of people in prison are not necissarily bad people, they just messed up (I'm not talking about the Gary Ridgeways of the world)
Truth be told, I've generally found your average convicted felon is a hell of a lot more decent than your average prison guard, who are allmost uniformly some of the most vile & despicable people I have ever met.
Posted by: Bob Blakely on February 8, 2007 07:18 AMPutting criminals behind bars and keeping them there is the #1 PROVEN method of reducing crime. Period.
If we're putting people behind bars who don't belong there due to outdated laws, lets change the laws, but people who break laws need to go to jail or we really don't have a working civilization.
If you said "too many people are going to jail for marijuana use" or "too many people are going to jail for failure to pay child support" and the punishment is worse than the crime, I might agree with you, but to make a blanket statement that prison guards are bad people and prisoners aren't so bad - well, that's simply silly.
Posted by: johnny on February 9, 2007 12:30 PM