Federal "Stop and Frisk" Policies

“Stop and frisk” policies are a known point of controversy. New York City had such a policy until a federal lawsuit was filed and a judge issued an injunction to stop it. “Stop and frisk” refers to law enforcement officers who stop a person and frisk (search) them without a search warrant or any probable cause whatsoever. 

These types of warrant-less searches occur in many parts of our nation. According to an article in Reason the American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) has filed a class action lawsuit against Madison County alleging “stop and frisk” searches conducted by Madison County Sheriff’s department are illegal. View the full article http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/19/mississippis-jump-out-boys"  for yourself.

Law enforcement claims they are searching people that fit a particular appearance because many crimes are committed by people with that appearance. The police claim “Stop and frisk” policies are part of the reason New York City’s crime rate dropped over the last 20 years. 

Others claim the policy is nothing short of racial profiling. They claim it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Some people believe a federal law should be passed to prohibit “stop and frisk” policies. 

Halfway Houses

In early 2017, H.R.2988 was introduced. If enacted, the law would amend Title 18, U.S. Code, to remove the requirement that residents of residential reentry facilities (halfway houses) pay 25 percent of any gross income earned during work release to offset the cost of being housed, and for other purposes.

Concerns:

Halfway houses cost money to operate. It makes sense that criminals who are released back into society should have to pay for their room and board. That is fair.

On the other hand, halfway houses are usually very profitable because they charge the 25 percent of gross income earned during work release even when the offender no longer lives at the halfway house but is still serving work release (halfway house time). This allows the halfway house to collect money from several offenders for each bed that has to be paid for. This is profitable.

Criminal Justice Reform

On January 3, 2017, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX-18) introduced H.R.61 – Fair Chance for Youth Act of 2017. This bill would amend the federal criminal code to create a process to expunge and seal certain youth criminal records. In this bill, a youth is defined as a person who was arrested, prosecuted, or sentenced for a criminal offense committed at age 21 or younger. 

A youth would be able to expunge records related to: 

(1) a misdemeanor conviction
(2) a nonviolent felony drug conviction   
(3) a conviction for any nonviolent offense committed prior to turning age 18   
(4) an arrest or prosecution for a nonviolent offense that is disposed of.

A youth would be able to petition to seal records related to:

(1) a nonviolent conviction
(2) a conviction for any offense committed prior to turning age 18
(3) an arrest or prosecution for a nonviolent offense that is disposed of.

Each federal district court would be required to establish a Youth Offense Expungement and Sealing Review Board to review and make recommendations to grant or deny expungement petitions. The court must consider and decide each petition for which it receives a Review Board recommendation.

Concerns: 

The United States already have a system that allows minors aged 16 years and under to seal their criminal history. By raising the age to 21 years, this essentially gives misguided youth another “get out of jail free” card. As minors become adults, it is in their best interest to teach them personal accountability. 

If crimes are to be expunged for offenders who committed them between ages 17 and 21 years, then it becomes harder to sentence them as a repeat offender when they commit a repeat offense. This will potentially encourage future bad behavior.