cwiseman21ahsgov

[cwiseman21ahsgov]

Blog Post 9 Final Infographic

[cwiseman21ahsgov]

Civic Action Assessment of Issue

I went to the town hall zoom meeting with congressman Mark DeSaulnier on October 29 from 3:30 p.m to 4:30 p.m. He went over the legislation that his office has introduced, some of the actions he has done, the bills hes passed, the committees hes on, and some of the actions him and his team have done to address the Coronavirus. He also showed us the districts and his one (11), after all of this he answered some student questions.  

Below are some notes I took during the meeting as well as the map and some of the slides he showed us. 

[cwiseman21ahsgov]

Legislative and Executive Action

Name and Number: Bill S. 4346: Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Permanent. It was introduced on July 28, 2020. From the 116th Congress. 

Origins: Bill 4346 originated in the Senate and was passed by it, it was then incorporated into another bill (Bill H.R. 8337) where it was passed by the House. H.R. 8337 is made up of many extensions to expiring bills that address health care, agriculture, and criminal reform. H.R. 8337 was passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, it was also signed by the President and became a law on October 1, 2020. 

Summary: This bill will restore the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, which had expired on June 22, 2020. It provides limitations on the civil liabilities of businesses to self-report criminal conduct on the Antitrust Division within the Department of Justice. This impacts my civic action issue because, as stated it limits what corporations can report involving criminal activity, meaning that only certain crimes can be reported, limiting the amount of people incarcerated for petty crimes. It also puts the Antitrust Committee in more control in making sure companies do not breaks laws and keeping them in check so less are sent to prison for said broken laws. 

Sponsor: Bill S. 4346 was sponsored by Republican Lindsey Graham, and cosponsored by Republican Mike Lee, and Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Amy Klobuchar. Having a Republican primary sponsor and one Republican and two Democrat cosponsors, that makes an even two to two ration of each party, giving the bill a chance of passing. 

Committee: Bill S. 4346 was assigned to the house - Natural Resources 

Representatives vote: I would encourage our representative to vote yea, and since this bill has been passed by both the House and the Senate and was signed by the president, he did vote yea. 

Executive Department: The Executive Department that manages my civic action issue is the U.S. Department of Justice

Department’s Mission: The U.S. Department of Justice mission is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the U.S., ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic, provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior and ensure fair and impartial administration of justice. The part of this that applies to my civic action issue is preventing and controlling crime and seeking just punishments for crimes. Being in charge of criminal based things, they are also in charge of the reforms that must be made to the exsisting system.

Secretary: William P. Barr is the current Attorney General (head of the department). He was Attorney General once before now, under President George H.W. Bush from November 1991 to January 1993. In order to be an Attorney General the individual must know the law (learned in the law) with the duty to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President. This impacts the department and my issue in positive ways, because the individual in charge knows the law and what they are doing, which makes their decisions more informed and knowledgeable. Instead of it was just an political appointment who did not know anything about the matter.

Cabinet’s Programs and Services: There is no page on this subject on the Department of Justice page.

[cwiseman21ahsgov]

California Proposition Assessment

Name: Proposition 20: Changes to Criminal Penalties and Parole 

Summarize: Theft offenses were made misdemeanors by Proposition 47, instead make them wobblers, could be charged with either misdemeanor or felony, regardless of value of stolen item. Required collection on DNA of people convicted of any crime, no matter how small. Grant parole to inmates convicted of nonviolent crimes with the victims families participating in parole review. Extent the list of crimes classified as violent and changes information provided when people are released on parole and requires it to be revoked if violated three times. 

Fiscal Impact: The precise coats are difficult to estimate, but it will increase state and local prisons costs by tens of millions of dollars annually. 

Voting Results: Proposition 20 was defeated, meaning it did not pass. I am not surprised because this proposition would put more people into prison and increase costs. 38.21% voted yes and 61.79% voted no. 

Sponsors, Interest Groups and Financial Backers: Keep California Safe or YES on 20, lead the campaign in support with the project called California Public Safety Partners (CAPSP).  U.S. representative David Nunes, and assembly members Jim Cooper and Vince Fong supported it as well. The unions that supported it are Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Los Angeles Police Protective League, and Peace Officers Research Association of California. The Orange County Board of Supervisors and Albersons Safeway were also large supporters. The political party that supported it was the Republican party. I am not really surprised by these supporters because having lived in Los Angeles area and Orange County know how they feel about crime there and I know that Safeway wanted to change their no-chase policy and have shoplifters charged with felonies. 

 Arguments For and Against: 

Argument for it are that crimes such as rape, human and child trafficking and domestic abuse are considered nonviolent crimes in the state of California and so inmates charged with these crimes are getting parole and out of prison easily and earlier. 

Argument against it are the proposal would increase the penalties for low-level offenses, in a system that is already profoundly biased against black, indigenous, and latino citizens. It would remove the chances of inmates who have already served several decades any hope for parole. The prison are already overcrowded, to the point where inmates have been sent to other states, and proposition 20 would only increase the number of people sentenced. 

How Would I Have Voted, and Why: I would have voted NO because I do not believe that the citizens of California should have to pay tens of millions of taxpayer money to convict and sentence more people to out already over crowded prisons. I also do not believe in cutting the funds for the rehabilitation program or required DNA collection for misdemeanors. I also do not like that the proposition would have inmates who qualify for parole have their age and skills added to the factors they need to be released. 

One Interesting Fact: It would cut the funds for rehabilitation and parole and and use that money for more sentences. 

[cwiseman21ahsgov]

Political Interest Groups and PACs Assessment

Name of political Interest Group: The Sentencing Project 

Position: Produce groundbreaking research to promote reforms in sentencing policy and to advocate for alternative to incarceration. 

Five things it advocates: banning life sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles, end life imprisonment, alternatives to incarceration, helping ex-convicts to gain the right to vote and have food stamps, lower the number of woman imprisoned (rate has increased 50% since 1980). 

Some current legislation: 23 states and the District of Columbia have banned life sentences without the chance of parole for juveniles. 

California’s gov. Gavin Newsom has closed 2 adult prisons and all youth prisons. 

The Senate Public Safety Committee has passed the assembly bill 2452 which prohibits the state (California) from seeking a criminal conviction on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. 

Location: Washington D.C. 

Volunteer opportunities: There are many volunteer opportunities, each state has multiple locations that you can visit to helps with the interest group. In California there are many locations, such as ACLU of Northern California (San Francisco), ACLU of San Diego, ACLU of Southern California (Los Angeles), California Prison Focus (Oakland), Critical Resistance (Oakland), and so on (There are a couple more in San Francisco and Oakland and there is one in Berkeley). They also travel to every state and cold conferences, give presentations, and host public forums. 

Interesting things: many other topics including incarcerations, drug policy, racial disparity, voting rights, collateral consequences and juvenile justice are on the website and are supported by the group.

PAC’s

Name of Super PAC: Cops & Kids together. 

PACs Position: Keeping people safe at schools (police in schools and veteran police in congress). 

Amount of money raised total and amount of money spend: Total this PAC has raised $505,729 and they spent $516,748 total, under independent expenditures they have spent $35,000. 

Amount of money spent for or against the Republican Party: $35,000 to the Republican party (candidate John Rutherford).

Amount of money spent for or against Democratic Party: $0 to the Democratic party. It does not really surprise me, it just shows it is a one party supporter PAC. 

Donors: There are only 8 donors. Brenda Swallow, Elieen Higman, Antoinette Valent-Sprunt, Christine Kohr, Jason Sterk, Robert Murphy, Cody Crihfield, and Theresa Couch. 

[cwiseman21ahsgov]

Election 2020 Presidential Candidates Assessment

Candidates Position: 

Howie Hawkins and Angela Nicole Walker for the Green Party: want to monitor and prosecute white racist terrorists, have federal investigations of local police misconduct, have a community control of the police, end mass incarcerations, treat drug abuse as a health problem instead of a criminal problem, legalize marijuana, decriminalize sex work, fight corporate crime and end warrantless mass surveillance. 

Agree or Disagree: I agree with most of the ideas they have, the only one I have a slight issue with is the have community control of the police, because this is very vague and communities could use it to manipulate events to their favor. 

Compared to Party Platform: Very similar to the party platform, two things on the party platform that are not on Hawkins’ page is focus on prosecution on corporate, white collar, and environmental crimes and the opposeition of private prisons. 

Donald J. Trump and Michael R. Pence for the Republican Party: want to protect and support students whose free speech rights have been attacked on university campuses, creak down on international criminal organizations like drug cartels and gangs, address and prevent school violence, and removing illegal guns from the streets. 

Agree or Disagree: I agree with these claims. 

Compared to Party Platform: Trump’s page conflicts with the party platform, on the platform page it claims to want to keep the death penalty, protect inmates from harm by other inmates and imprisoning anyone who assaults a police officer but includes nothing about protecting students or removing guns from the streets. 

Gloria La Riva and Sunil Freeman for the Peace and Freedom Party:

Not on the page and had to contact. 

Dear Gloria La Riva, The issue I am concerned about is Criminal Law Reform and Juvenile Justice .  I am concerned about this issue because I did not see it on your page and would like to know your view on it.  I am currently a senior at Acalanes High School and I am researching this issue for my senior Government class.  Please clarify your stance on this issue.  Thank you so much for your time and good luck.

Sincerely, Charlotte Wiseman 

charlotte.wiseman21@auhsdschools.org

Roque De La Fuente Guerra (Rocky) and Kanya Omari West for the American Independent Party: 

Not on the page and had to contact. 

Dear Roque De La Fuente Guerra,The issue I am concerned about is Criminal Law Reform and Juvenile Justice .  I am concerned about this issue because I did not see it on your page and would like to know your view on it.  I am currently a senior at Acalanes High School and I am researching this issue for my senior Government class.  Please clarify your stance on this issue.  Thank you so much for your time and good luck.

Sincerely,Charlotte Wiseman

charlotte.wiseman21@auhsdschools.org

Jo Jorgensen and Jeremy Cohen (Spike) for the Libertarian Party: wants to defund federal involvement in policing, defund the DEA , end the supply of surplus military equipment to police, end no-knock raids, make it easier for people dealing with drug addiction to get helps, and drug offenders who are currently in prison and have not harmed anyone will be set free. 

Agree or Disagree: I disagree with the first three ideas, I do not think we should defund the DEA or federal involvment. I however do agree with endding no-knock raids and helping people who suffer with addiction. 

Compared to Party Platform: Jorgensen’s page also conflicts with the party platform page. The platform states that the party wishes to repeal creating laws for crimes without victims, avoid intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains and to keep innocent until proven guilty, but the candidates page is all about defunding federal involvment in police and freeing drug users. 

Joseph R. Biden and Kamala D. Harris for the Democrat Party: wants to focus on redemption and rehabilitation, offer second chances, expand federal funding for mental health and substance use disorder services and research, invest in public defenders offices, eliminate mandatory minimums, decriminalize the use if cannabis, eliminate the death penalty, end the criminalization of poverty, and ensure humane prison conditions. For Juvenile justice they want to invest $1 billion per year in juvenile justice reform, incentivize states to stop incarcerating kids, end the school to prison pipeline by focusing on prevention, give children a true second chance by protecting juvenile records, and reduce violence against women. 

Agree or Disagree: I agree with all of the claims except eliminating the death penalty. 

Compared to Party Platform: The candidates page supports the party platform page. 

[cwiseman21ahsgov]

Political Party Action

Republican Party Position: Keep the death penalty, imprison anyone assossiated with assaults involving serious injury to law enforcement officers, protect inmates from harm by other inmates, continue to fight pornography. 

Agree or Disagree: I agree with the position, I think it is very important to keep fighting pornography and human/child trafficking.

Democrat Party Position: Break the school-to-prison pipeline that relies on arrests and law enforcement to address misbehavior that can be handled within the school. Its unjustifiable to punish children and teenagers as harshly as adults (if you aren’t old enough to drink, you aren’t old enough to be sentenced to life without parole), children who enter the criminal justice system should be given a true second chance, establish strict national standards governing the use of force (banning chokeholds and cartid holds), and support measures to improve training to ensure transgender and gender non-conforming people as well as people of color get equal treatment. 

Agree or Disagree: I agree with this position as well, especially the line if you are not old enough to drink then you are not old enough to serve life in prison without parole. That is a very strong belief of mine. 

Libertarian Party Position: Favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims (gambling, use of drugs for medical reasons, and transactions involving sexual services), restitution to the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer, innocence until proven guilty, a speedy trail and other constitutional rights of the criminally accused must be preserved, oppose avoiding juries by intimidating defendants into accepting plea bargains. 

Agree or Disagree: I also agree with this position. It is very similar to the democrat and republican ones. 

Green Party Position: Reduce the prison population, invest in rehabilitation, and end the failed war on drugs. Law enforcement priorities focus to much on drug-related and petty, non-violent crimes and not enough on prosecution of corporate, white collar, and environmental crimes. Oppose privatization prisons because they treat prisoners as product and provide worse service then government-run prisons.  

Agree or Disagree: I again agree with the position, they all wish to do the same things, just different wording. 

Peace and Freedom Party Position: Abolish the death penalty, repeal the Three Strike law, stop trials and imprisonment of juveniles as adults, treatment of prisoners as human beings (rehabilitation not vengeance), decriminalize victimless activities (drug use and consensual sex), legalize marijuana, end war on drugs, stop unwarranted searches and seizures and abolish all torture in prisons. 

Agree or Disagree: I agree with all of the listed except abolishing the death penalty. I think their should be modifications to it but not remove it, some criminal can not be kept imprisoned. For example Ted Bundy escaped from prison twice and if he were not killed by the death penalty he could have escaped again. I think they should keep the death penlaty just only use it in extream cases. 

Reflect: I agreed with all of them but if I have to chose one I would say the democrat one, which really surprised me but their wording on not locking up juveniles really spoke to me.  

[cwiseman21ahsgov]

Media Assessment of Issue

Three Articles about Criminal Law Reform 

Article 1 - Objective 

Reuters 

Trump and the 2020 Democrats brand themselves criminal justice reformers 

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1ZQ14K

Subject -  Explains how Trump, Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigeig, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Yang, and Steyer  claim they will address the issue and reform it. 

Author - the authors are Trevor Hunnicutt and Sharon Bernstein, Trevor is a journalist who works for many different news sights, not many large sights but a writes many articles for Reuters. Sharon Bernstein is also a journalist and works for articles like the Washington Post and Reuters.

Content - The article was published on January 27, 2020 at 3 am but there is no location of publishing 

Audience - The article was published to states the facts of each of the democractic runners opinion and promise of action for the issue of criminal law reforms. 

Perspective - this article is objective and has no opinion or bias it is statements from what the democratic runners said, no opinions added. 

Significance - Trump signed in the First Step Act with reduced mandatory minimum sentencing, Trump tried to restart executions of death row inmates but was rejected by Supreme Court, Biden states he would eliminate prison sentencing for drug use and eliminate the death penalty. Biden also claims he would reform the juvenile justice program and keep youths from being incarcerated with adults. Sanders says he will remove the death penalty.

Article 2 - Liberal 

The Atlantic 

The Clemency Process Is Broken. Trump Can Fix It. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/the-first-step-act-isnt-enoughwe-need-clemency-reform/580300/

Subject - People are serving 25 to life sentences for drug possession and tho the First Sept Act has been passed the president (Trump)  can do more to grant people behind bars Clemency. 

Author - There are 3 authors Rachel Barkow, Mark Holden, and Mack Osler. Rachel Barkow is the professor of regulatory law and policy at New York University, Mark Holden is the senior vise president and general counsel of Koch Industries and Mark Osler is a professor of law at the University of St. Thomas. 

Content - This article was published January 15, 2019, it was the most recent article on the Atlantic that involved Trump and criminal law reform. 

Audience - This article is liberal and is directed to liberals 

Perspective - The article is written from the liberal point of view and so it is against Trump,

Significants - The First Step Act took 6 years to pass, people are serving sentences that are deemed excessive by Congress and the president has not recourse other than clemency to have those sentences reighsized.   

Article 3 - Conservitive 

The National Review 

Democrats Prefer 'Reforming’ the Criminal-Justice System to Punishing Criminals 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/democrats-prefer-reforming-criminal-justice-system-to-punishing-criminals/

Subject - It talks about all the democratic candidates that were running for president and what they claim they would do on criminal law reforms and then the author criticized why all of their plans would not work. It mentions that planes to reduce incarceration, bail reform, elimination private prisons, curtailing mandatory minimums, decriminalizing cannabis, enhancing background checks of gun buyers, long sentences for those who can not pay fines, investigation police departments, ending stop-and-frisk, restricting police force, elimination solitary confinement, end death penalty, and increasing funding for public defenders. And the authors states reasons why all of these are bad ideas and can not work. (I strongly disagree) 

Author - Barry Latzer is a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY. 

Context - Published on February 17, 2020 on the National Review 

Audience - This article is intended for conservitive or Republican people

Perspective - This article is written from an conservitive bias and it very much against every single democratic runners plans from criminal law reform. I do not agree with them, some of their facts were obviously twisted to make them work for him. 

Significance - the criminal justice system is bias against African Americans, some of the plans are minimalist and other are maximalist. 

Some similarities between the three articles is that they all involve Trump and running candidates and what has been said can be done by the president. 

Some differences is that the the liberal article does not mention all the claims of the candidates, but the objective and conservative articles do, and the conservative article is the most opinionated. 

I identify with the objective article to most because I am independent and do not really agree with the liberal and conservative articles much, I strongly disagree with the way the conservative article dismisses all of the planed reforms. 

[cwiseman21ahsgov]

Blog Post 1

1. What civic actions issue did you choose and why?

 I choose criminal law reform and juvenile justice, I choose it because I am interested in pursuing a career in criminal law and I want to know more in where the topic stands and my sister is pursuing a career in FBI work so it has always interested me. 

2. Describe the issue in your own words and how it relates to government? 

Juvenile justice is about not sending children and teens to life sentences because they are still young and developing and deserve a chance at rehabilitation, treatment and positive reinforcement. Many juveniles that are younger then teens are prosecuted as adults and sent to prison with adults were they are a great risk and are often never given the chance of parole. 

Criminal law reform is about how some people are sentenced to life in prison with out parole for things as little as marijuana possession or even skin color. The United States prison population is 25% of the whole worlds, and it has gone up 700% since 1970. 

For both of juvenile justice and criminal law reform the government is what makes the laws for their sentencing and terms, the police force, courts, and government establish and enforce the laws that incarcerate these minors and adults. 

3. What type of action do you think needs to be taken to address this issue? 

I think that the executive and judicial branches need to review the sentencing laws that they currently have and make adjustments. For example if an 6 year old shoves their friend as a joke and the friend hits there head and dies, that 6 year old should not be sentenced to life in prison without parole for an accident, the 6 year old should be given the chance be rehabilitation and maybe when they turn 18 be given a psych evaluation. Another example would be if an man had legal marijuana in California and went to say Washington for a vacation and gets arrested for having it, that man should not have to spend life in prison for that.