Statement of Mike Lawlor
Chair, House Judiciary Committee
Connecticut General Assembly
On behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures
May 11, 2000
My name is Mike Lawlor and I serve as vice chair of the Law and Justice Committee of the Assembly on Federal Issues, a part of the National Conference of State Legislatures. I am here today representing NCSL.
Aimee's Law attempts to solve a problem that no longer exists. If enacted, Aimee's Law would create a mechanism sure to be used in other policy areas, like gun control, public health, education and tobacco. Although well intentioned, Aimee's Law is worse than an unfunded mandate. Its retroactive application will pit one state against another and turn already limited federal law enforcement assistance funds into a superfund of sorts for clever state budget balancers. In general, the NCSL believes that Congress should not substitute national criminal laws for state and local judgment and we ask you to work in partnership with state and local governments to achieve truth in sentencing, especially for violent offenders.
Aimee's Law is worse than an unfunded mandate
The proposed mechanism appears to be retroactive and will penalize states for parole and early release decisions made twenty or thirty years ago. Instead of relying on federal assistance based on my state's willingness to adopt state-of-the-art criminal justice policies, Connecticut will be forced to focus on identifying current defendants and prisoners who have been convicted previously of homicide, rape or sexual abuse of children in other states. We will be forced to do so in order to offset the federal funds we will certainly lose as our former inmates are prosecuted or incarcerated in other states.
The fact is that no state required violent offenders to serve 85% of their sentences until the mid 1990's and no state in the nation currently requires a life sentence without possibility of release for all of the crimes listed in H.R. 894.
Should this proposal become law, every state will be subject to the loss of most, if not all, federal law enforcement assistance. The states with the quickest and most thorough researchers will reap the windfall. If this proposal is enacted, Connecticut plans to identify every offender in our data base who has an out of state record for any of the listed crimes and pursue reimbursement for all of the listed expenses. I'm sure that every other state will do the same. In the end, we would lose our annual law enforcement grants to other states and we would hope to recoup at least that much from other states. I'm not sure what the point of this bureaucratic exercise would be.
Aimee's Law can be used in other public policy areas
"NCSL strongly urges federal lawmakers to maintain a federalism that respects diversity without causing division and that fosters unity without enshrining uniformity." NCSL policy statement adopted July, 1998.
Aimee's Law allows individual states to punish other states that have failed to adequately deal with an individual who creates a burden on the state. In this case, violent criminals released early in one state who victimize someone in a new state create a cause of action against the original state. The penalty is automatic assuming the statutory criteria are met and the funds are readily accessible. The simplicity is appealing and can be adapted to fit other policy areas.
For example, Congress could authorize states to make a similar claim against federal law enforcement funds when one of their citizens is injured or killed by a person who bought a handgun at a gun show in a state which does not require a background check for all gun sales, both public and private. Connecticut allows only licensed individuals to purchase handguns, whether in a store, gun show or living room, and all sales require a check with the state police.
Another use of such a mechanism would be for states to make a claim on another state's Medicaid reimbursement if a chronically ill person requires hospitalization in a new state after receiving inadequate care in that old state. Perhaps states with relatively lax enforcement of teenage smoking rules should have to forfeit federal funds to other states who must care for seriously ill lifetime smokers. States with substandard schools could forfeit federal educational assistance grants to states providing remedial services to students whose families have moved from one state to another.
My state would benefit under all of these rules. However, each such rule would undermine the diversity and unity which have been the bedrock of our federal system.
Aimee's Law solves a problem that no longer exists
This proposal punishes states for decisions made in the past. Early release of violent offenders was commonplace in every state ten or fifteen years ago. But, the impact of Aimee's law will be felt in the future. There is no law my state can enact which would protect us from the penalties suggested in this legislation.
Offenders sentenced for murder, rape, sexual abuse of children and other violent crimes under current state truth in sentencing rules will not be released for decades. Connecticut, for example, recently ranked 6th nationally in percentage of time served on a violent crime sentence. On average, Connecticut violent offenders served 68% of their sentences, ranking behind Vermont (87%), Missouri (86%), Arizona and Washington (74%) and Minnesota (69%). That ranking is based on 1997 data. In 1998, violent offenders in my state served on average 74.7 % of their sentences.
Also in Connecticut, persons convicted of murder are not eligible for parole under any circumstances. As of October 1, 1994, good time credits are not available to any offender. Therefore, persons convicted of murder serve every day of the sentence imposed by the court.
Lengthy sentences and truth in sentencing have become the rule rather than the exception for the crimes of murder, rape and child molestation in almost every state. As a state legislator, I ask that you help us continue our efforts to insure that violent criminals receive and serve appropriate sentences rather than punishing us for our inability to handle the surging tide of criminal cases and prisoners which began in 1980 and continued unabated until very recently. Many states need assistance developing alternative forms of punishment for less serious, non-violent prisoners to free up cell space for serious, repeat violent offenders. We are badly in need of more specialized treatment for mentally ill and drug dependent offenders who have overwhelmed our prisons and jails.
Aimee's Law ignores several important facts
The "No Second Chances for Murderers, Rapists or Child Molesters Act of 1999" does not take into account the diversity of criminal statutes and the lack of uniformity in sentencing systems. It is almost impossible to develop a formula that appropriately acknowledges the unique aspects of criminal law and procedure in each of the fifty states. My state punishes sexual abuse of a fourteen year old just as severely as sexual abuse of a thirteen year old. Your proposal creates a distinction not recognized in our criminal records. Your definition of "sexually explicit conduct" would include conduct that would otherwise be a misdemeanor in Connecticut. Given the high financial stakes, many states would stretch those definitions to cover compensation for arrest and prosecution of many sexual offenders who typically receive sentences of probation or jail.
The proposal also risks diverting crime victim compensation money to violent offenders themselves. Many homicide victims are drug dealers with bad aim. A $100,000 entitlement for less-than-innocent victims is a bad idea. Connecticut and many states with crime victim compensation programs apply standards to claims for financial assistance to exclude "guilty" victims and federal mandates should respect those distinctions.
In recent years the Subcommittee on Crime has provided important leadership to state and local governments in the fight against violent crime. We in state legislatures throughout the nation hope to continue working with you in partnership to ensure that recent reductions in the level of violent crime can be sustained. We think Aimee's Law and proposals of this type undermine the long standing tradition respect for state and local responses to crime.
|
