Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/383608793/Letter-to-Senate-Leaders-on-FIRST-STEP-Act
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 07:59:25
Document Index: 165713135

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 3553', '§ 102', '§ 103', '§ 924', '§ 104', '§ 401', '§ 412', '§ 102', '§ 101', '§ 102', '§ 106', '§ 102', '§ 102', '§ 1070', '§ 105']

Letter to Senate Leaders on FIRST STEP Act | Mandatory Sentencing | Prison
enregistrerEnregistrer Letter to Senate Leaders on FIRST STEP Act pour plus tard
VAPJN Newsletter #21
Re: FIRST STEP Act (S. 2795) & Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (S. 1917)
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to reform,
revitalize, and defend the country’s systems of democracy and justice. We write today to urge
Congress to pass substantive, bipartisan sentencing reform.
In an earlier letter to House leadership, we wrote to emphasize that this year presents a once-in-a-
generation opportunity to pass serious criminal justice reform — that is, legislation to both
meaningfully reduce the number of people entering the federal prison system, and release people
currently incarcerated when justified. 1
The FIRST STEP Act, S. 2795, 2 provides much-needed improvements to prison conditions and
increases opportunities for prisoners to reenter society. But it currently lacks any sentencing reform
component, amounting to a missed opportunity that would leave the problem of mass incarceration
unaddressed. 3 However, amending the Act to include the sentencing reform provisions of the
bipartisan Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act (SRCA), S. 1917, or passing FIRST STEP in
tandem with SRCA, would seize the opportunity to meaningfully reduce our country’s prison
population. In light of this, we urge Congress to pass SRCA, or advance the FIRST STEP Act only
if it includes meaningful sentencing reform.
SRCA’s key sentencing provisions — found in Sections 101 through 105 of the bill — are the
result of careful bipartisan negotiations and, if enacted, would significantly reduce overly-harsh
federal drug sentences. Specifically, these provisions would expand the “safety valve,” giving
judges more discretion in sentencing low-level offenders, and would reduce certain mandatory
minimum sentences and other enhanced penalties. This bipartisan deal represents years of effort
under the leadership of Republicans and Democrats, and it would be a mistake to discard it.
Of these provisions, Sections 102, 103, and 104 are especially critical. Section 102 would broaden
the application of the statutory safety valve provision to cover a broader group of offenders, 4
effectively giving judges greater discretion to fit the punishment to the crime. 5 An estimated 2,100
people would benefit from this expansion each year going forward. 6 Section 102 also would work
to alleviate systemic racial disparities manifested in rates of relief under the existing safety valve, 7
directly addressing the overrepresentation of communities of color in our federal prison system. 8
Section 102 would help reduce unfair federal sentences, and mark major progress toward reducing
mass incarceration. Passing this change should be a priority for Congress.
Also significant, Section 103 would restore federal prosecutorial and judicial discretion for low-
level, non-violent drug offenders by limiting the applicability of the 10-year mandatory minimum
drug penalty. 9 While the previous Administration sought to use such penalties only where
necessary — recognizing that long sentences for low-level, non-violent drug offenses are often
ineffective 10 — Attorney General Sessions has directed prosecutors to prioritize longer prison
terms for every federal offense. 11 Lawmakers in both parties reject this draconian strategy, and
with low-level, non-violent offenders accounting for 25 percent of the national prison population,
it is imperative that Congress act now to ensure that offenders receive proportional and fair
sentences. 12
Lastly, Section 104 would put an end to the practice of “stacking” firearm offenses. Under current
law, second and subsequent firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) are treated as recidivist
crimes and “stacked” even if charged in the same indictment as the initial offense, unjustly treating
a first-time offender as a career criminal. Section 104 would remedy this by clarifying that the
enhanced mandatory minimum sentence for multiple § 924(c) convictions 13 — an additional 25
years for each conviction — applies only to offenders who have previously been convicted and
served a sentence for such an offense. 14 A priority for both progressives and conservatives, 15 this
section would also help address stark racial disparities. A shocking 94 percent of offenders who
currently have multiple § 924(c) convictions are people of color. 16
The FIRST STEP Act in its current form is inadequate to effectively address the miscarriage of
justice that is mass incarceration. The FIRST STEP Act, amended to include Sections 101 through
105 of SRCA, or advanced in tandem with SRCA, would be a true first step toward meaningful
Thank you for your time and consideration. We are happy to provide more assistance to your
offices as you consider this important issue.
Inimai M. Chettiar, Justice Program Director
Ames Grawert, Senior Counsel
Priya Raghavan, Counsel
Attachment: Brennan Center letter of May 8, 2018
1Brennan Center for Justice, Letter to Congress on the FIRST STEP Act, May 9, 2018,
https://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/civil-rights-groups-criticize-tepid-prison-reform-bill.
2 FIRST STEP Act, S. 2795, 115th Cong. (2018), https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2795.
3The United States has nearly 25 percent of the world’s prisoners, despite only having 5 percent of the world’s
population, which amounts to an incarceration rate of 693 per 100,000 people. See James Austin and Lauren-Brooke
Eisen, How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?, Brennan Center for Justice, 2016, 3,
https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/how-many-americans-are-unnecessarily-incarcerated.
4 The safety valve currently only applies to people in Criminal History Category I. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1).
5Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, S. 1917, 115th Cong., § 102 (2018), https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-
congress/senate-bill/1917/text.
6See U.S. SENTENCING COMM’N, S. 1917, THE SENTENCING REFORM AND CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2017 (Mar. 19, 2018),
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/prison-and-sentencing-impact-
assessments/March_2018_Impact_Analysis_for_CBO.pdf. This report provides an assessment of SRCA’s budgetary
impact, as well as the Commission’s estimate of the impact of several sections of the bill on the sentences that would be
imposed on federal offenders.
7For example, in fiscal year 2016, 77.2 percent of black drug offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory
minimum penalty were in Criminal History Categories II – VI, disqualifying them from consideration for the safety
valve. See U.S. SENTENCING COMM’N, AN OVERVIEW OF MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES IN THE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 40 (2017), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-
publications/research-publications/2017/20170711_Mand-Min.pdf. These offenders would be eligible for relief under
Section 102 of SRCA.
8The imprisonment rate of African-Americans continues to be 5.5 times higher than that of white Americans, despite an
overall marginal decrease (3 percent) in the federal prison population since 2009. James Austin and Lauren-Brooke
Eisen, How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, 2016, 14,
9 S. 1917, 115th Cong. § 103.
10See U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT POLICY ON CHARGING MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES AND
RECIDIVIST ENHANCEMENTS IN CERTAIN DRUG CASES 1 (2013),
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/ag-memo-department-policypon-charging-
mandatory-minimum-sentences-recidivist-enhancements-in-certain-drugcases.pdf.
11See U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT CHARGING AND SENTENCING POLICY 1 (2018),
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/965896/download; see also U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, LETTER TO SEN.
CHUCK GRASSLEY (Feb. 14, 2018), https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000161-966d-da6b-ade9-fefd38e20001%20
(describing SRCA and its inclusion of mandatory minimum reform as a “grave error”).
12See James Austin and Lauren-Brooke Eisen, How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?, Brennan Center for
Justice, 2016, 9, https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/how-many-americans-are-unnecessarily-incarcerated.
13 See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (relating to a person who may be prosecuted for using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during a
crime of violence or drug trafficking crime).
14 S. 1917, 115th Cong. § 104.
15Jason Pye, “ ‘Unjust, Cruel, and Even Irrational’: Stacking Charges Under 924(c),” FreedomWorks,
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/%E2%80%9Cunjust-cruel-and-even-irrational%E2%80%9D-stacking-charges-
under-924c.
16In 2017, black offenders accounted for more than two-thirds of offenders convicted of multiple counts under 924(c)
(70.5%); Hispanic offenders accounted for 23.1%; and white offenders accounted for 6.4%. See U.S. SENTENCING
COMM’N, MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES FOR FIREARMS OFFENSES IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
24 (2017), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-
publications/2018/20180315_Firearms-Mand-Min.pdf.
revitalize, and defend the country’s systems of democracy and justice. We write today to share
our concerns about the FIRST STEP Act, as well as any effort to pass criminal justice reform
legislation that does not include a sentencing reform component.
Although the FIRST STEP Act includes several important reforms, and improves on prior
legislation, it does not take steps to reduce the number of people entering prison in the first place.
Any true reform effort must start with sentencing reform, and we urge you to either revise the
bill to add such measures, or commit to advancing the Act only in tandem with a companion,
robust sentencing reform bill.
In an earlier letter, we wrote to share similar concerns regarding the Prison Reform and
Redemption Act, H.R. 3356 (“PRRA”). At the time, we noted that the PRRA excluded any
mention of sentencing reform; that its time credit system would not reduce the length of any
federal prisoner’s sentence; and that it may fall short of its stated goal of providing meaningful
rehabilitative and reentry programming. 1 The Leadership Conference, along with more than 60
other civil rights groups, also wrote to share similar concerns. 2
Since the date of our letter, the Committee has chosen to advance the FIRST STEP Act instead
of the PRRA. This new legislation adds several notable provisions, including one to ensure that
prisoners will be placed close to their families whenever possible, 3 and another to guarantee that
incarcerated women have access to women’s health products, free of charge, during their prison
term. 4 These are real improvements over the original draft of the PRRA.
Regrettably, the FIRST STEP Act does not address our two core concerns. Like the PRRA, the
FIRST STEP Act’s reentry provisions are not designed to ensure they achieve their stated goals.
Some components may even be interpreted as a step backward: for one, the bill eliminates
community supervision as a possible option for prerelease custody. 5 That change makes it more
likely that, as explained in our initial letter, prisoners participating in recidivism-reduction
programming will be unable to use earned credits. The Act also in practice reserves opportunities
to engage in productive activity, such as work programs, for the lowest-risk prisoners. 6
We also share the additional concerns raised by the Leadership Conference and other
organizations in their letter sent today, including their concern that the Act could amplify
existing disparities in the criminal justice system. 7
More seriously, the FIRST STEP Act continues to lack any sentencing reform component. This
omission prevents the FIRST STEP Act from having any discernable impact on mass
incarceration. For example, while some inmates may quickly become eligible for transfer to
prerelease custody under this Act, no unnecessarily long prison sentence will be shortened.
For the reasons stated in our earlier letter, then, we urge the Committee to either continue
working to improve the FIRST STEP Act, by adding sentencing reform provisions, or to commit
to advancing this legislation only in tandem with a companion sentencing reform bill. One such
vehicle would be the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, S. 1917, currently pending in the
Senate, where it was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan vote. 8
The federal prison system currently fails to provide effective reentry and rehabilitation services.
Reforms to address that problem, and improve overall conditions of confinement, are necessary,
and the FIRST STEP Act marks progress toward that goal.
But we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pass comprehensive criminal justice reform.
If Congress were to advance the FIRST STEP Act without sentencing reform, it would
effectively cede its own leadership on criminal justice reform and let the President and Attorney
General set the terms of the debate. This would derail the best chance in years for real criminal
justice reform — a tragic loss for racial justice.
We urge your Committees to continue working to improve the FIRST STEP Act, and to advance
it only alongside meaningful sentencing reform legislation.
Inimai M. Chettiar Ames Grawert
Director, Justice Program Senior Counsel, Justice Program
cc: Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives
Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader of the House of Representatives
Attachment: Brennan Center letter of April 18, 2018
Brennan Center for Justice, Letter to Congress on the Prison Reform and Redemption Act, Apr. 18, 2018,
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/letter-congress-prison-reform-and-redemption-act.
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Letter of Concern Regarding H.R. 3356, the Prison Reform
and Redemption Act, Apr. 13, 2018, https://civilrights.org/letter-concern-h-r-3356-prison-reform-redemption-act/.
See FIRST STEP Act, H.R. ____, 115th Cong. § 401 (2018).
FIRST STEP Act § 412.
FIRST STEP Act § 102(b) (referring only to “home confinement” and “residential reentry center[s]” as possible
options for prerelease custody).
FIRST STEP Act § 101(a) (requiring the Attorney General to report on progress by the Bureau of Prisons toward a
goal of ensuring that “not less than 75 percent of eligible minimum and low risk offenders have the opportunity to
participate in prison work programs”).
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights to House Judiciary Committee, Vote “No” on the FIRST
STEP Act, May 8, 2018, https://civilrights.org/vote-no-first-step-act/.
Senate Judiciary Committee, Results of Executive Business Meeting, Feb. 15, 2018,
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/02-15-
18%20Results%20of%20Executive%20Business%20Meeting.pdf.
Hon. Charles Grassley Hon. Robert Goodlatte
135 Hart Senate Office Building 2309 Rayburn House Office Building
Hon. Dianne Feinstein Hon. Jerry Nadler
331 Hart Senate Office Building 2109 Rayburn House Office Building
Re: Prison Reform and Redemption Act (H.R. 3356)
Dear Chairman Grassley, Senator Feinstein, Chairman Goodlatte, and Rep. Nadler:
our concerns about any effort to pass criminal justice reform legislation that does not include a
sentencing reform component.
The Prison Reform and Redemption Act, H.R. 3356 (“PRRA”) advances an important goal —
improving conditions and services for people in federal prison — but as written, does not take
steps to reduce the number of people entering prisons in the first place. Any true criminal justice
reform effort must start with sentencing reform, and we urge you to advance such a measure in
tandem with the PRRA.
Mass incarceration is today’s civil rights struggle, affecting communities of color at far higher
rates than their white counterparts. Our nation is one of the world’s leading incarcerators, far
eclipsing other democracies in the rate at which we imprison our fellow-citizens.1 Research
conclusively demonstrates that our overreliance on prison is unnecessary to preserve public
safety, and may even be counterproductive. 2 The public agrees: in a divided nation, criminal
justice reform remains a rare point of agreement, with Republicans and Democrats both
supporting solutions that will reduce unnecessary incarceration.3
In 2016, Congress came close to passing the bipartisan Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act
(S. 2123). Republicans, Democrats, law enforcement groups, conservatives, and progressives
united in an unprecedented effort to reduce overly long federal sentences.4 Then-Senator Jeff
Sessions adamantly opposed the bill, and successfully derailed its passage. Fortunately,
congressional leaders were undeterred. In February, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a
new version of this bipartisan bill, S. 1917. 5
Now, however, the White House seeks to advance legislation that would improve conditions for
those in prison, but abandon any effort to enact bipartisan sentencing reform. If Congress were to
join in this effort, it would effectively cede its own leadership on criminal justice reform and let
Jeff Sessions set the terms of the debate. This would derail the best chance in years for real
criminal justice reform — a tragic loss for racial justice.
The PRRA has some valuable provisions and addresses an important goal. But we ask that
Congress commit to advancing the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act or other strong
sentencing reform if it is going to move forward with prison reform legislation. Similar concerns
about legislation focused on such “back-end” reforms were raised by the Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights, and more than 60 signatory groups, in letters sent on March 23 and
April 13, 2018 (“Leadership Conference Letters”).6
Any Criminal Justice Reform Effort Must Start with Sentencing Reform.
Sentencing reform should be the starting point for federal legislation, as the overuse of
incarceration remains the most urgent challenge in our justice system.
Starting in the 1980s, Congress passed a series of laws that increased the penalties faced by
federal offenders — especially drug offenders — while removing judicial discretion to impose
lesser penalties where appropriate. 7 As a result of this and other efforts, the federal prison
population grew by more than 600 percent.8 A similar trend played out across the country,9 as
states increased their own reliance on extreme penalties, in part responding to federal
incentives.10
All told, the cost of operating America’s vast criminal justice system now tops $270 billion a
year.11 Despite this massive growth in incarceration and corresponding expenditure of public
resources, Brennan Center research shows that our historic investment in prisons contributed
little to the post-1991 crime decline.12 Longer sentences do little to deter crime. 13 Worse, our
nation’s overreliance on prison locks people out of jobs and the economy long after they have
paid their debt to society,14 costing the American economy billions annually.15 That burden, in
the form of under- and unemployment, falls disproportionately on communities of color. 16
Solving these problems requires changing our laws to reduce the number of people entering
prison. Brennan Center research finds that at least 40 percent of American prisoners are
incarcerated without a justifiable public safety reason, and could be released without negatively
impacting crime rates. Many of these prisoners could be better served by alternative measures
such as treatment, probation, or electronic monitoring; others could benefit from shorter
sentences more proportional to the crimes they committed. 17
This is more than theoretical. Over the last decade, 35 states successfully reduced both crime and
incarceration, many under conservative leadership. States from Texas to Georgia to South
Carolina to New York have taken such action.18
Lawmakers in both parties recognize the centrality of sentencing reform to any attempt to reduce
mass incarceration. Just two months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance the
Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act,19 which would cautiously reduce mandatory minimums
in some drug cases. Far from a party-line vote, 16 senators, including 6 Republicans, voted to
refer the bill to the full Senate.20
Despite this broad consensus, the PRRA does not include a sentencing reform component, and
instead focuses on creating programming for prisoners during their still overly-long
incarceration.21 Like other “back-end” reform bills focused on conditions of confinement (such
as the CORRECTIONS Act, S. 1994), the PRRA falls short of the transformative change needed.
While it makes important changes, it sets a starting point for criminal justice reform that is far
weaker than the bold changes implemented in even the most conservative states.
The PRRA May Not Improve Prison Conditions As Currently Written.
We also share concerns, raised in the Leadership Conference Letters, that the PRRA may not be
structured to achieve its stated goal of reentry reform.22
First, the PRRA aims to create recidivism-reduction programming for federal prisoners, and
encourage its use by awarding participants “time credits.” 23 But these credits do not reduce a
prisoner’s sentence. Instead, they allow part of the sentence to be served in a halfway house or
other form of “prerelease custody.” 24 But the systemic underfunding and underutilization of
“prerelease custody” options like halfway houses in the federal system mean that prisoners may
not even be able to use their credits once earned. 25 Without broader reforms and funding to
ensure its success, the PRRA risks making a promise that cannot be kept.
Second, while the text of the bill nods toward extending rehabilitative programming to all
prisoners, especially those at the highest risk of recidivating, 26 it goes on to include a laundry list
of prisoners ineligible for time credits — predominantly violent offenders, for whom this exact
type of recidivism-reduction programming would be most effective. 27 Taken together, the credits
for rehabilitation offered by the PRRA would be unavailable to some, and unusable by others.
Lastly, the PRRA misses an opportunity to expand vocational training or education options for
federal prisoners. These solutions have suffered from cuts or other legal barriers, but have been
shown to reduce recidivism and improve prisoners’ overall ability to successfully reenter their
communities.28 Rather than expanding access to those proven solutions, the bill encourages
individual wardens to “enter into partnerships” with third-party organizations to deliver these key
services — a paper guarantee that comes without funding or further support. 29
and the PRRA is a step in that direction. But making such reforms a central legislative goal,
rather than part of a comprehensive package that includes sentencing reform, unnecessarily
limits the range of achievable reform at a key juncture.
Americans of all political affiliations agree on the urgent need to repair our justice system. This
vision is shared by community organizers, law enforcement leaders, activists, business
executives, social scientists, people of faith — and by a majority of your House and Senate
We urge your Committees to advance the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act and to
strengthen the PRRA.
cc: Hon. Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader
Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives
Members, Senate Judiciary Committee
James Austin and Lauren-Brooke Eisen, How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?, Brennan Center
for Justice, 2016, 15,
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Unnecessarily_Incarcerated_0.pdf. Katie Sanders,
“Fact Checking John Legend’s Claim That We Live in the Most Incarcerated Country in the World,” Politifact,
February 23, 2015, http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/23/john-legend/fact-checking-john-
legends-claim-we-live-most-inca/.
for Justice, 2016, https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Unnecessarily_Incarcerated_0.pdf.
Oliver Roeder et al., What Caused the Crime Decline?, Brennan Center for Justice, 2015,
American Civil Liberties Union, “91 Percent of Americans Support Criminal Justice Reform, ACLU Polling
Finds,” November, 2017, https://www.aclu.org/news/91-percent-americans-support-criminal-justice-reform-aclu-
polling-finds.
Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and Incarceration to Senators Grassley and Feinstein, Letter in
Support of the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, February 6, 2017, http://lawenforcementleaders.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/Law-Enforcement-Letters-for-Sentencing-Legislation.pdf. Mark Holden, Koch Industries
Vice President to Senators Grassley and Leahy, Letter in Support of the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act,
October 14, 2015, https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2015-10-
14%20Koch%20Industries%20to%20Judiciary%20-
%20Sentencing%20Reform%20and%20Corrections%20Act.pdf.
Senate Judiciary Committee, Results of Executive Business Meeting, February 15, 2018,
See The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights to House Judiciary Committee, Letter Opposed to
Prison Reform and Redemption Act, April 13, 2018, https://civilrights.org/letter-concern-h-r-3356-prison-reform-
redemption-act/; see also The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights to Senators McConnel and
Schumer, Letter Opposed to the CORRECTIONS Act, March 23, 2018, https://civilrights.org/civil-human-rights-
groups-senate-prison-reform-must-include-sentencing-provisions/.
American Bar Association Justice Kennedy Commission, Reports with Recommendations to the ABA House of
Delegates, 2004, 26-28,
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_kenn
edy_JusticeKennedyCommissionReportsFinal.authcheckdam.pdf.
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Statistics, “Past Inmate Population Totals,” last modified April 12, 2018, accessed April
17, 2018, https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/population_statistics.jsp#old_pops.
Margaret Cahalan, Historical Corrections Statistics in the United States, 1850-1984, United States Department of
Justice, bureau of Justice Statistics, 1986, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcsus5084.pdf. E. Ann Carson,
Prisoners in 2016, United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018,
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ p16.pdf.
Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Inimai Chettiar, The Reverse Mass Incarceration Act, Brennan Center for Justice, 2015,
https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/reverse-mass-incarceration-act.
Peter Wagner and Bernadette Rabuy, Following the Money of Mass Incarceration, Prison Policy Initiative, 2017,
Council of Economic Advisers, Executive Office of the President of the United States, Economic Perspectives on
Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System, 2016,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files
/20160423_cea_incarceration_criminal_justice.pdf.
Cherrie Bucknor and Alan Barber, The Price We Pay: Economic Costs of Barriers to Employment for Former
Prisoners and People Convicted of Felonies, Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2016,
http://cepr.net/publications/reports/the-price-we-pay-economic-costs-of-barriers-to-employment-for-former-
prisoners-and-people-convicted-of-felonies.
Devah Pager, The Mark of a Criminal record, American Journal of Sociology, 108 (2003): 937-75,
https://scholar.harva rd.edu/files/pager/files/pager_ajs.pdf.
Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Inimai Chettiar, Criminal Justice: An Election Agenda for Candidates, Activists, and
Legislators, Brennan Center for Justice, 2018, 22,
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Criminal_Justice_An_Election_Agenda_for_Candidat
es_Activists_and_Legislators%20.pdf. Lauren-Brooke Eisen and James Cullen, Update: Changes in State
Imprisonment, June, 2017, https://www.brennancenter. org/press-release/new-analysis-states-lowered-crime-and-
incarceration-rates-simultaneously. Pew Charitable Trusts, State Reforms Reverse Decades of Incarceration Growth,
2017, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/201 7/03/state-reforms-reverse-decades-of-
incarceration-growth.
CORRECTIONS Act of 2017, S.1994, 115th Cong. (2017), https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-
bill/1994.
https://www.judiciary.senate. gov/imo/media/doc/02-15-
See Prison Reform and Redemption Act of 2017, H.R. 3356, 115th Cong. (2017),
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3356/text?r=21%23toc-
HE31C47319D2E4283A210BB3B32B4B1CE.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights to House Judiciary Committee, Letter Opposed to Prison
Reform and Redemption Act, April 13, 2018, https://civilrights.org/letter-concern-h-r-3356-prison-reform-
redemption-act/.
H.R. 3356, 115th Cong. § 102(e)(2).
H.R. 3356, 115th Cong. § 106(5).
H.R. 3356, 115th Cong. § 102(c).
H.R. 3356, 115th Cong. § 102(e)(2)(C); Families Against Mandatory Minimums, “Prison Reform and
Redemption Act — 115th Congress, H.R. 3356 (Collins),” 2018, http://famm.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/08/Collins-PRRA-Summary-115th.pdf.
Lois M. Davis et. al, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A Meta-Analysis of Programs That
Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults, RAND Corporation, 2013,
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR266.html. Sari Horwitz, “U.S. Official Says Prison System’s Best
Reentry Program Cut ‘Dramatically,’” Washington Post, October 29, 2015,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/deputy-attorney-general-prison-systems-best-re-entry-
program-has-dramatically-shrunk/2015/10/29/8d96713a-7e66-11e5-beba-
927fd8634498_story.html?utm_term=.98be56ec1228. 20 U.S.C. § 1070a(b)(6) (making Pell Grants unavailable to
federal prisoners).
H.R. 3356, 115th Cong. § 105(a).
Documents similaires à Letter to Senate Leaders on FIRST STEP Act
Marj Perdon
Notice: Competitive impact statements and proposed consent judgments: SBC Communications, Inc., et al.
Land Law II ( Larow)as at Mac 2014