1023 - Compassionate Release Act
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:05:36 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  1023 - Compassionate Release Act
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 1023 - Compassionate Release Act  (Read 1210 times)
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 14, 2016, 09:59:17 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2016, 10:02:29 PM »

This bill is a public submission by Clyde1998, Editor of the Atlasia Chronicle.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2016, 09:51:12 AM »

I have an issue with clause 1 of section 1. I don't feel that biweekly visits would be enough to effectively prevent prisoners who were convicted of serious crimes (like armed robbery, murder, and rape) from committing more crimes in the future. Life imprisonment is a thing for a reason.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2016, 11:29:23 AM »

I have an issue with clause 1 of section 1. I don't feel that biweekly visits would be enough to effectively prevent prisoners who were convicted of serious crimes (like armed robbery, murder, and rape) from committing more crimes in the future. Life imprisonment is a thing for a reason.
I'd be willing to have more frequent visits for more serious crimes, should the House feel that this is required. Although, for most prisoners that would be released, I believe that every two weeks would be enough - due to the increased chance of being caught again. I'd also consider having surprise visits to help with this concern.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 15, 2016, 01:48:00 PM »
« Edited: August 15, 2016, 01:52:22 PM by Santander »

There are massive problems with this proposal.

First of all, the federal government has no right to dictate the prisoner release policy of non-federal prisons. Second, federal law already provides for compassionate release: https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5050_049_CN-1.pdf. Third, there is no reason that pregnancy could be considered akin to a terminal illness for any purpose.

Before proposing anything, I urge legislators to consider 1) Does the law already exist? 2) Is it constitutional and 3) Does the government have an interest in the matter? That would severely cut down on the number of redundant or blatantly unconstitutional bills that we're seeing. The arguments taking place should not be on petty things like monitoring of released inmates - those kinds of things are not even for legislators to decide, those are for the bureaucrats in the relevant department to decide. The arguments taking place should be about the Constitution and the role of government.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2016, 10:29:48 PM »

But yeah, I still have to object to letting criminals who committed serious crimes out.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2016, 11:11:14 AM »

There are massive problems with this proposal.

First of all, the federal government has no right to dictate the prisoner release policy of non-federal prisons. Second, federal law already provides for compassionate release: https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5050_049_CN-1.pdf. Third, there is no reason that pregnancy could be considered akin to a terminal illness for any purpose.

Before proposing anything, I urge legislators to consider 1) Does the law already exist? 2) Is it constitutional and 3) Does the government have an interest in the matter? That would severely cut down on the number of redundant or blatantly unconstitutional bills that we're seeing. The arguments taking place should not be on petty things like monitoring of released inmates - those kinds of things are not even for legislators to decide, those are for the bureaucrats in the relevant department to decide. The arguments taking place should be about the Constitution and the role of government.
The bill, at present, makes no suggestion that anything other than Atlasian prisons would be allowed to release inmates on compassionate grounds. "1. Any prisoner held in a prison, under Atlasian jurisdiction, shall be entitled to compassionate release from prison should they have a terminal illness." I'd be willing to modify the terminology to "Federal jurisdiction" to prevent any confusion.

Under the law that you linked to, it appears that only inmates over the age of 65 (unless I'm misinterpreting) should be considered for compassionate release:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Whereas all other cases listed relate to a reduction in sentence (RIS), rather than release. This bill gives a broader list of cases that can be considered for compassionate release, making the bill relevant.

Pregnancy isn't being put in the same boat as terminal illness. The pregnancy section, currently, states:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
This means that the release is only for the duration of the pregnancy.

Under the three points that you wish legislators to consider:
1) There is a law regarding compassionate release, but this bill adds heavily to it - as there is no mechanism for anyone under 65 (again, unless I've misinterpreted) to be released from prison under compassionate grounds.
2) I believe this bill to be constitutional, especially given that you've pointed out that a bill allow the release of prisoners already exists.
3) People will have different opinion on whether the Government would have an interest in release of prisoners. I believe that the Government should be ensuring that people aren't dying in prison from terminal illnesses when they can have their final days at home around people they love. For the release for pregnancy, I believe that the Government should be ensuring that children have the best possible start to life. Being in prison conditions before they are born wouldn't benefit the unborn child in any way.

But yeah, I still have to object to letting criminals who committed serious crimes out.
Blair has suggested an amendment regarding violent and serious crimes in the Senate that I'm willing to support: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=243466.msg5218935#msg5218935
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2016, 11:57:49 AM »

I can support Senator Blair's amendment. If it requires a House sponsor, I will do it.

Also I apologize for waiting so long on this bill.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2016, 08:53:19 PM »

Seeing as how well over 36 hours have passed, Senator Blair's amendment has been adopted.

Barring any objections, we will now move to a final vote.
Logged
Clyde1998
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2016, 09:10:53 AM »

I'm not sure if there's much need to have a vote now, as the Senate has already voted against the proposal. Although, there could be a vote to see whether the House supports the bill at this time. Unleash I'm misunderstanding the system in place.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2016, 01:26:20 PM »

I'm not sure if there's much need to have a vote now, as the Senate has already voted against the proposal. Although, there could be a vote to see whether the House supports the bill at this time. Unleash I'm misunderstanding the system in place.
As far as I can tell, we vote anyways, even though the bill will not pass at this time.
Logged
Clark Kent
ClarkKent
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2016, 10:01:33 PM »

The voting period has not closed yet, but I have been busy with classes the last few days and was unable to contact Representatives until today, so I will extend the voting periods on all bills currently being voted on for an additional 24 hours.
Logged
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2016, 09:18:45 AM »

Nay
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2016, 12:41:15 PM »

I think this bill raises important issues, but I was never able to see how the security issues here could be worked out.  I think there may be a way to do that, maybe with some sort of medical facility that offers people more freedom and visitors than a prison.  If we can figure that out, I would gladly support this, but for now I'm afraid it has to be a

Nay
Logged
NeverAgain
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,659
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2016, 03:33:52 PM »

I think this bill is well thought through and well-reasoned. The Blair amendment also helps focus on protecting those with nonviolent offenses and not criminals who intend on doing crime again.

With that, I vote strongly Aye.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2016, 06:57:49 AM »

Nay. Nonviolent offenders yes. But this goes beyond that.
Logged
NeverAgain
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,659
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2016, 10:20:46 PM »

Uncluttering old house bills for my Noticeboard -

This bill fails 3-1, with 5 not voting (of course like none of them are in the house currently.)
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 12 queries.