Paul. And that is on the Violent Crime side, we tend to have a lower crime rate than a lot of other states while at the same time keeping our incarceration rate lower by using more probation and using more treatment options. So thats why im a fan of the work thats been done here. And my first question is really along those lines of drug courts. Ive led some. Efforts here on drug courts and getting funding for drug courts carrying on the work of many that came before me, including ted kennedy and jim ram stead over on the house side. When we look at what this bill might save, we know that drug courts save money. And we know that getting some of the nonviolent offenders out of the prisons will save money or reducing their sentences. Do you think we could use some of this money to pay for things like drug courts ms. Yates, do you think that will be helpful as we look at how we are going to make up for the fact that we are going to be bringing people out of prison. But they not only need R
Federal prison serving mandatory minimum sentences for a drug crime, 55,000. Thats more than 50 of all federal drug offenders and more than one quarter of all federal prisoners. Many of those serving are lowlevel offenders and its true that some lowlevel offenders like couriers dont receive mandatory minimum but others are frequently sentenced to so what is your response to the claim that this is much ado about something to that were not going address or potentially address a large sector of the federal prison population . I think that we absolutely will. If you look statistically at the profile of drug defendants currently in the bureau of prisons right now, youll see that there are a number of low level nonviolent drug defendants. For example, less than 1 of the defendants in federal prison actually had violence or threatsover violence in connection with their drug offense. Only 16 of them had a weapon. Half of them had little or no criminal history at all and only 7 of them are lead
Forward, but also to people who were convicted and sentenced under old laws. Inmate sentences under the old mandatory minimums can ask a judge to sentence them in accordance with the new mandatory minimums. But a prosecutor gets to weigh in also. And the inmate will only get a lower sentence if the judge agrees it is appropriate after the judge has considered factors like the inmates danger to the community. But others have raised concerns about the department of justice going to stand idly by and let dangerous criminals walk. So this is my question, kind of a statement. I hope that i have your commitment that the department of justice will review each of these resentencing on a casebycase basis and that the determination on these resentencings will be made by local u. S. Attorney offices. Senator, we are anything but idle at the department of justice. You have our commitment that we will carry out the Retroactive Application of the provisions of this proposal in a thoughtful manner, o
Are responsible for, you know, getting tough on crime and throwing the book at people and implementing the policies that we enshrine into law. But i will ask you both, youre both members of the bar. Youre both attorneys. Youre licensed to practice law. And you know that when a person suffers a a felony conviction even misdemeanor convictions in many states, they are barred from being able to be licensed to practice law. Do you believe that those types of barriers which are collateral consequences, you believe that those should be removed from persons ability to practice law, to get a law license . Mr. Heck . Well, i think like in any other collateral sanction, i think they have to be looked at, the offense and the offender. And i think there are cases. Weve seen it in ohio, where those impediments have been removed. And someone who is convicted, say, for example of Involuntary Manslaughter or murder have become lawyers. Weve seen it with a lot lesser offenses. And yet at the same time
However, advocates for reform in this area have argued that in many cases the collateral consequences that apply to a given conviction are scattered throughout the code books and unknown to those responsible for the enforcement. This claim should found familiar for the witnesses of this task force since the witnesses have showed the statues are scattered throughout the code. And Supreme Court recognized in 2010 additionally that when a person considering a guilty plea is unaware of serious consequences that will follow this raises questions of fairness and the Constitutional Rights of effective assistance of council. There are several areas where i have serious concerns most notablely with regard to the argument advanced by many, including one of the witnesses today, that congress should force private employers who ignore criminal history when making a hire decision via ban the box and other liege legislation issues. I dont believe that those engage in the conduct should be able to com