Thursday, October 29, 2015

United States Sentencing Commission

Please read and digest the IMMEDIATE RELEASE below and then follow through in sending your letter to the United States Sentencing Commission. As many of you know the child pornography issue is the government's new 'cash cow' which was confirmed by this article a few years back:  http://www.komonews.com/news/national/115381304.html

The length of federal child pornography sentences has increased 500 percent in the last 15 years. The U.S. Sentencing Commission is currently reviewing the guidelines for child pornography offenses and determining how they can be improved. http://famm.org/affected-families/child-pornography-sentences/
IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Deadline to submit letters November 12, 2015)

INSIDER’S OPPOSITION TO THE United States Sentencing Commission’s Amendment Proposal to 4B1.2(a)(2)

On August 7, 2015, the United States Sentencing Commission introduced a proposed Amendment to the definition of “crime of violence,” to include the non-contact, Child Pornography offenders.

The Commission is currently reviewing criminal research data, and federal sentencing statistics.  The proposed Amendment would then be promulgated to amend Section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines, which would then be submitted to Congress for approval NO later than May 1, 2016.

We must make every effort possible to block this proposed amendment.

Should this pass, it would have the most detrimental impact on otherwise low-level offenders; ie: possession, receipt, transportation, distribution, and other computer related activities involving child pornography.

With the looming Prison Reform Bill that will most likely be passed later this year, one of the provisions of the bill would include increased good-time credits for programming for the non-violent offenders.  Right now, non-contact CP crimes are deemed as non-violent through the Department of Justice. However, should the amendment pass through Congress, ALL CP offenders would be excluded from receiving the extra good-time earnings.

In addition, the measure could possibly increase or stiffen the terms and conditions for offenders who are placed on supervised release.  It would also make all non-violent offenders be placed as a Tier 3 or VIOLENT offender on the Sex Offender Registry.

Should this Amendment pass, it would become retroactive and have some effect on the offenders regardless if you are incarcerated or out on supervised release.

The Sentencing Commission is currently accepting public comment on this issue until November 12, 2015.  Our friends at Caution Click have launched a campaign through letters to challenge this proposed Amendment.

WE ALL need to get involved in this campaign and start sending in letters, and insisting that your family members, loved ones and friends also send in letters, rejecting this proposal.

You may write your own letter, or use the one provided, but be sure to send in your letters through standard mail.  The numbers DO matter on this issue, so we need to make every effort to flood the Commission with our letters rejecting this Amendment.  It is time for us to start taking control of our futures, and this is a good place to begin.


Send letters to:
United States Sentencing Commission
% Public Affairs
One Columbus Circle N.E.  Suite 2-500
Washington DC 20002-8002
  
Date:   ______________________
  
United States Sentencing Commission
% Public Affairs
One Columbus Circle N.E.   Suite 2-500
Washington DC 20002-8002

     RE:  Proposed Amendment to Section 4B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines definition of “Crime of Violence.”

Dear Members of the Commission:

This letter is in response to the Commission’s request for public comment on the above styled issue.  It is my personal belief that possession of child pornography should be EXCLUDED from the definition of a “forcible sex offense.”  Non-production offenses, such as possession, receipt, transportation or distribution of child pornography does not meet the criteria of being a Sexual Act or of having actual hands-on physical contact with a minor.  Therefore, it needs to be excluded as a violent offense.

Not all Sentencing Guidelines are tied to empirical evidence.  GALL v. UNITED STATES, 552 U.S., 128 S. Ct. at 594 n.2.    There is no research or data that indicates that these non-production offenses are deemed “violent.”  In fact, in deciding a criminal case, a district judge may not presume that the guideline sentence is a correct one.  See RITA v. UNITED STATES, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2465 (599 F. Supp. 2d 1039) 168 L.Ed. 2d 203 (2007).

Using the classification of “violent offender” for the non-contact offender is the same as labeling that offender who has had actual physical contact with a child.  This distorts the truth and is very misleading to the Courts and to the public.

It has been noted by several Courts across the United States that the Guidelines for these types of offenses are NOT based on Commission study or expertise, and that they are directly contrary to the Commission’s original, studied approach, and to several of its subsequent recommendations and reports. Therefore, as they are, the guidelines range are worthy of little respect or deference.  UNITES STATES v PHINNEY 599 F. Supp 2d., 1037 (7th Cir. 2009).

The non-contact child pornography offenses are not violent in nature and should not be classified as such.

We are all passionate about protecting our children.  However, we have taken this passion to an unforgeable level of applying a definition that does not relate to the actual crime committed, and using this term to perpetuate a life time of punishment.

Therefore, I would like this letter to be entered as public comment to item 4(D) in the “Issues for Comment” section of the United States Sentencing Commission proposal to amend section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines.

Name:

Address:

City:                                           State:                                          Zip Code:

Phone:                                                  Email:


WAR Admin

1 comment:

  1. I think people are over-reacting on something that’s already in the books. The PDF is here,

    http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendly-amendments/20150807-RFP-Amendments.pdf

    and people are freaking out about the info on page 8. However, it’s under section Corresponding Revisions to §2L1.2 – Unlawfully Entering or Remaining in the United States. The info on the CP Posession is ALREADY in the books, as shown on the USSC web site:

    http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2011/2011-2l12

    I do not think this is a new thing, and people seeing it now may be over-reacting. I hope. The changes on the first PDF file are highlighted or struck through…there’s nothing new in the CP section under 2L1.2

    ReplyDelete