I
103D CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2899
To require each State to undertake a comprehensive examination of the
State’s criminal sentencing practices and to adopt a sentencing system
consistent with that review and to help fund additional space in State
prison programs as needed.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AUGUST 5, 1993
Mr. ROYCE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary
A BILL
To require each State to undertake a comprehensive exam-
ination of the State’s criminal sentencing practices and
to adopt a sentencing system consistent with that review
and to help fund additional space in State prison pro-
grams as needed.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Violent and Repeat
Offender Accountability Act of 1993’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
(1) it is the responsibility of the Federal Gov-
ernment to provide States help in certain areas, in-
cluding efforts to reduce violent crime;
(2) Federal legislation relating to criminal jus-
tice, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (‘‘RICO’’) and the Federal Sen-
tencing Guidelines, has been very effective in dealing
with crimes to which the legislation applies;
(3) the responsibility for protecting citizens
against most violent crimes and for punishing most
violent criminal offenders is primarily a matter of
State and local governance;
(4) violent crimes nationwide have risen dra-
matically and constitute a national priority of the
highest order;
(5) the persistence and increasing incidence of
violent crime, despite the efforts of State and local
governments, has resulted in a vastly increased Fed-
eral role in this area, and there is pressure for even
greater Federal involvement in criminal matters tra-
ditionally handled by State and local governments;
(6) the Federal courts especially have become
overburdened with criminal matters more properly
handled by State and local governments;
(7) a major impetus for this increased Federal
role in combating violent crime is the lack of effec-
tive tools with which State and local governments
can prosecute violent criminal offenders;
(8) a more uniform, proportionate, and appro-
priately punitive system of sentencing for violent
criminal offenders would serve both to reduce the in-
cidence of violent crime and to reduce the need for
direct Federal involvement in criminal matters tradi-
tionally handled by State and local governments;
(9) a more appropriate and effective role for the
Federal Government in the struggle against most
violent crime is to encourage each State to take the
steps necessary to reduce crime in such State which
would also reduce the national crime rate;
(10) the United States Sentencing Guidelines
have proven to be an effective means of achieving,
at the Federal level, a more uniform, proportionate,
and appropriately punitive criminal sentencing sys-
tem; and
(11) each State should be required to analyze
its criminal sentencing system and to consider
whether the adoption of a revised sentencing system
would enable it to combat violent crime more effec-
tively.
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are—
(1) to require each State to undertake a com-
prehensive examination of the State’s criminal sen-
tencing scheme and to create a sentencing system
which more effectively governs the sentencing of vio-
lent offenders; and
(2) to provide funds to States that comply with
the requirements of section 5(b) to implement nec-
essary changes to the State criminal sentencing sys-
tem, including increasing the capacity of State cor-
rectional facilities if necessary.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION.
For the purpose of this Act, the term ‘‘State’’ means
any State of the United States.
SEC. 4. STATE SENTENCING REVIEWS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Each State, in order to be eligible
for funds under this Act, must conduct a systematic re-
view of its criminal sentencing laws and practices.
(b) STATE SENTENCING REVIEWS.—Not later than
one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the gov-
ernment of each State shall submit to the Attorney Gen-
eral a report detailing the results of the State’s review of
its criminal sentencing system. The report also shall in-
clude the following:
(1) An analysis of the State statutory criminal
sentencing scheme, including information regarding
murder (all degrees), arson, burglary, assault, rob-
bery, kidnapping, extortion, rape, and child molesta-
tion. This analysis should include—
(A) the minimum and maximum sentence
available for each offense;
(B) the basis for distinguishing between
different degrees of the same offense;
(C) whether factors in addition to the ac-
tual crime (such as criminal history, victim im-
pact, or use of a weapon) should be considered
by the sentencing authority; and
(D) whether probation or some other non-
custodial alternatives to incarceration are a sen-
tencing option.
(2) An analysis of the sentences actually im-
posed by State court judges for the crimes listed in
paragraph (1).
(3) An analysis of the time which has actually
been served for the conviction of crimes listed in
paragraph (1).
(4) An analysis of the practices and procedures
of the State relating to probation, parole, and other
alternatives to incarceration, with particular empha-
sis on crimes which have been committed by con-
victed criminals while on parole or probation or oth-
erwise not incarcerated.
(5) An analysis of whether the State sentencing
system permits or requires the sentencing authority
to order convicted criminals to pay restitution to the
victim, the victim’s family, or the State, and the per-
centage of restitution orders which are actually col-
lected.
(6) An analysis of whether and under what cir-
cumstances State law permits the pretrial detention
without bond of dangerous offenders.
(7) An analysis of whether and under what cir-
cumstances State law gives victims the right to be
informed, present, and heard at all critical stages of
a case from arrest through parole.
(8) An analysis of whether and how State law
establishes post conviction relief procedures which
limit repetitive challenges by convicted offenders.
(9) An analysis of State law regarding the ap-
plication of adult sentencing laws to juvenile offend-
ers charged with the crimes listed in section 4(b)(1)
of this Act.
(10) An analysis of the State prison capacity
and whether court orders limit, or otherwise impact
such capacity and whether a lack of capacity im-
pacts sentencing or release decisions at the judicial
or administrative level.
SEC. 5. STATE SENTENCING SYSTEMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Each State, in order to comply
with this Act, must submit for approval a plan to the At-
torney General that evaluates the criminal sentencing sys-
tem and, if necessary, creates a sentencing system which
complies with the requirements of subsection (b).
(b) STATE SENTENCING SYSTEM.—In addition to re-
sponding to the reporting requirement of section 4(b) of
this Act, the State, in a subsequent report to the Attorney
General, shall describe in detail any changes in the State’s
criminal sentencing system designed to meet the require-
ments of this Act. The elements of a sentencing system
that the States must have in order to be in compliance
with this Act shall include at least the following:
(1) State constitutional or statutory authority
for pretrial detention of dangerous criminals.
(2) Mandatory minimum prison sentences,
which do not allow probation or suspension of sen-
tence, for violent offenders or repeat offenders
who—
(A) intentionally or knowingly inflict seri-
ous physical injury;
(B) use or exhibit deadly weapons in the
commission of the crimes listed in section
4(b)(1) of this Act.
(C) commit violent or sexual offenses
against children; and
(D) commit sexual assault.
(3) Mandatory life sentence with no release for
third or subsequent conviction of violent crime.
(4) Truth in sentencing provisions which re-
strict parole, good-time credit release for violent of-
fenders, or other forms of early release to not more
than a total reduction of 15 percent of the sentence
imposed.
(5) State constitutional or statutory provisions
which guarantee to victims the right to be informed,
present, and heard at all critical stages of the crimi-
nal case, and provisions to ensure the collection,
tracking, and enforcement of restitution from the of-
fender in all cases involving economic loss to the vic-
tim.
SEC. 6. FUNDING AND COMPLIANCE.
(a) FUNDING.—There shall be available to carry out
the purposes of this Act, for fiscal year 1994, $1,000,000;
for fiscal year 1995, $1,500,000; for fiscal year 1996,
$2,000,000; for fiscal year 1997, $2,500,000; and for fis-
cal year 1998, $3,000,000; from amounts appropriated for
foreign operations during such fiscal years (specifically
from the amounts allocated for the Multilateral Develop-
ment Banks, the International Development Association,
the Agency for International Development, Public Law
83–480, and the Export-Import Development Bank) and
from amounts appropriated from Federal land purchases
and from amounts appropriated for trade promotion ac-
tivities and travel and tourism activities.
(b) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of a grant
made under this Act may not exceed 50 percent of the
total costs of the projects which receive funds under this
Act.
(c) COMPLIANCE.—Beginning 3 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall elimi-
nate funding to a State that does not comply with the
requirements of this Act.
Æ