Security - What's New - Archive

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Security Archives page.

Doing Time: Congress Gangs up on the Courts

On May 11, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed sweeping anti-gang legislation that could affect not only the penal system, but also the balance of power between Congress and the courts.

The bill imposes new minimum sentences for gang-related crimes, and redefines "gang" to mean an informal group of three or more people who have committed at least two crimes together, one of which is a violent crime.

Supporters claim that tougher penalties are needed to fight growing gang violence that they say has spread to suburban America. Opponents argue that longer sentences do little to solve the problem, and that more efforts need to go into prevention and education.

The measure comes relatively soon after January’s Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Booker in which the Court overruled Congress. The Supreme Court decided that Congress’ minimum sentences on drug dealing and repeat offenses are advisory guidelines, rather than mandatory regulations. Nevertheless, the House has attempted to determine sentencing once again.

What did the House pass?

The House passed HR 1279, a bill nicknamed "gangbusters" since it is intended to deter and reduce violent gang crime. In addition to expanding the definition of "gang," the bill would impose a sentence of at least 10 years for any gang-related act of violence; a minimum of 20 years for serious assaults; and at least 30 years for rape, maiming, or kidnapping. The measure also requires life imprisonment or the death penalty for murder and allows prosecutors to try suspects who are older than 16 years as adults.

On the funding side, the bill would provide $438 million for anti-gang law enforcement teams, additional state and federal prosecutors, and new technology to detect gang members.

Supporters say that the minimum mandatory sentences and additional resources are needed to combat increasing gang violence. Gang-related murders have been on the rise in recent years, with the latest Justice Department statistics showing a 34 percent increase in homicides between 2000 and 2003.

The bill’s proponents contend that prosecutors need a bigger bargaining chip when trying to convince gang members to cooperate in investigations. The bill’s sponsor, J. Randy Forbes (R- Virginia), argues that longer sentences would be an effective tool in persuading gang members to testify against their superiors.

The other side

But opponents like Representative Robert C. Scott (D- Virginia) say that prosecutors already have all of the tools that they need to indict gangs and that mandatory sentences just waste taxpayer money.

Scott argues that prosecutors and judges already apply the strictest sentences to the worst criminals, so mandatory minimum sentences tend to affect lesser offenders only, a trend that human rights groups call unfair. Civil rights advocates also argue that mandatory minimum sentencing affects people of color disproportionately.

Further, The United States Sentencing Commission, which was created by Congress to monitor criminal penalties, has repeatedly stated that mandatory minimums are too broad to apply to individual cases.

Opponents also point out that gangs’ best recruiting grounds are in the prisons themselves, so lesser offenders may become even more involved in gangs while serving lengthy prison terms. Critics of the bill refer to studies, including research by the conservative Heritage Foundation, that recognize social programs to be more effective against gang violence than are extended prison sentences.

Democrats are pushing for prevention and education programs as opposed to mandatory minimum sentences, and the Senate version of the bill, sponsored by Diane Feinstein (D- California) and Orrin Hatch (R- Hatch), does just that.

Controlling the courts

Many see the anti-gang legislation as yet another attempt for Congress to influence the courts. Of late, the legislative branch has been quite critical of the judicial, with some congresspeople criticizing the courts’ inaction in the Terri Schiavo case and action on the gay marriage issue. And the importance of the Senate check over the judiciary has become glaringly apparent as Democrats and Republicans fight over the advice and consent clause of the Constitution, which prescribes some Congressional oversight over the courts.

But how much should one branch influence another? Should Congress be dictating minimum sentences to judges, or should judges themselves decide penalties based on the specifics of the case? Are longer jail terms the best way to try to curb gang violence or are preventive programs a better bet?

What do you think?

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To log onto one of our online forums, click here.

WomenMatter encourages women to educate themselves on the issues and then approach their representatives with ideas.

Even though the election is over, your voice is vital. Make sure your leaders know what’s important to you. To see how your representatives vote and to contact them, click here.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 5/21/2005