Several bills (H.R. 894, H.R. 4045, H.R. 4047, H.R. 4147) designed to reduce crimes against children were the subject of a May 11 hearing held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime.
Subcommittee Chair Bill McCollum (R-FL) said that all four bills were approved as amendments to the juvenile justice bill (H.R. 1501) approved by the House last June. Although the Senate has also approved a juvenile justice measure (S. 254), a conference committee appointed to resolve the differences between the two bills remains stalled (see The Source, 6/18/99, p. 1). Noting that the outcome of the conference is uncertain, Rep. McCollum called for swift independent action on the four bills, saying they all “attempt to provide for greater protections for our most precious national asset—our children.”
H.R. 894 would encourage states to sentence individuals convicted of murder, rape, or sexual offenses against children with a minimum of life imprisonment without parole. Under the bill, if an individual with a past conviction in one state were arrested for another of those crimes in a different state, a deduction would be made from the federal law enforcement funds designated for the first state and the money would be transferred to the second state. The state that released the offender would also be required to pay $100,000 to the victim or the family of the victim involved in the second crime.
Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ), sponsor of the bill, said, “Of course, states have the right to release convicted murderers, rapists, and child molesters into their cities and neighborhoods. However…who should pay when one of these violent predators commits another murder, rape, or sex offense in a different state?”
Rep. Salmon added that a “safe harbor” clause would exempt states from the funds transfer if the criminal served at least 85 percent of the original sentence and if the state has enacted a truth-in-sentencing policy. A truth-in-sentencing movement has started in reaction to the practice of regularly releasing or paroling convicted criminals before completion of their sentences, which was common during the 1980s and early 1990s. Mike Lawlor of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) testified that H.R. 894 is “worse than an unfounded mandate,” as it will “pit one state against another” in the competition for “already limited federal law enforcement assistance funds.” In addition, he said, the bill “appears to be retroactive and will penalize states for parole and early release decisions made twenty or thirty years ago.”
He criticized the safe harbor clause, saying, “No state required violent offenders to serve 85 percent of their sentences until the mid-1990s 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.”
H.R. 4045 would direct the U.S. Sentencing Commission to change the federal sentencing guidelines to increase penalties for federal crimes against individuals age 13 and younger.
The measure also would authorize the Federal Bureau of Investigation to assist states in investigating murders with victims age 13 and younger.
Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA), sponsor of the bill, said that in most cases, the bill’s requirements would “result in the doubling of the punishment, and in the most violent cases, increase the chance of life in prison or the death penalty.”
Rep. Cunningham acknowledged that critics of the bill are concerned about allowing Congress to dictate the actions of the Sentencing Commission, responding: “This legislation is about national leadership, to tell the states and local communities that the federal government will not tolerate violence against our children.”
Professor Franklin Zimring of the University of California at Berkeley told the subcommittee that “only a tiny percentage of violence against children comes to federal courts.” He added: “It would be legislative malpractice to do anything other than gather basic data on the federal share of child violence cases, the disposition of such cases, and the likely impact” of the bill.
H.R. 4047 would mandate a minimum sentence of life imprisonment for anyone with a previous conviction under state or federal law who is convicted a second time for a federal sexual offense. Under the bill, federal sexual offenses would include sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact, and the interstate transportation of minors for sexual purposes. The definitions pertain to activities involving individuals age 16 and younger.
Rep. Mike Green (R-WI), sponsor of the bill, spoke in favor of his measure’s “two-strikes-and-you’re-out” approach, adding: “Repeat child molesters must be locked away for life.” He cited a study by Emory University, stating: “Child molesters are four times more likely than other violent criminals to recommit their crime. A typical molester will abuse between 30 and 60 children before they are arrested—as many as 380 children in their lifetime.”
Professor Zimring said that very few “offenders come before the federal courts who meet the criteria” of the bill, adding: “This bill would have no impact on the lives of 99 percent of American children who are at risk of sexual predation.”
H.R. 4147 would affect federal charges for those who knowingly transmit obscene material through the mail or in any form of interstate commerce—such as the Internet—to minors. Currently, enhanced sentencing guidelines apply to cases involving minors age 16 and younger; H.R. 4147 would raise that age to 18. The enhanced guidelines call for sentences of 10 years, in comparison with 5-year sentences for cases that do not involve minors.
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), sponsor of the bill, told the subcommittee, “If this body is going to act on behalf of our children and concerned parents in limiting exposure to obscene material, then we should act accordingly and across-the-board for all juveniles.” He added, “We should make sure that those who would seek to spread this filth knowingly to our children will be ready to pay the price of up to 10 years behind bars.”
Professor Zimring said that obscene material is often transmitted to those age 16 and 17 by individuals who “are close in age to the transferees,” adding that there is “a questionable link between the subject of the law and the danger of predatory sexual crime against the young.” He claimed it is unlikely that the bill “will have any impact on the sexual abuse of American kids.”
