[ad_1]
The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill that would permanently restrain the District of Columbia Council from altering the city’s sentencing laws, even to impose harsher penalties. The legislation’s passage, named the DC CRIMES Act, has sparked outrage among local leaders who fear it would impede their ability to respond to evolving crime trends.
The House’s move to pass the bill, with a vote of 225-181, further highlighted bipartisan worries following a surge in crime last year.
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) condemned the bill as “the biggest rollback of D.C. self-government in a generation” during her speech on the House floor.
The DC CRIMES Act, which Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) has championed, reflects Republican efforts to assert control over D.C.’s criminal justice system and seeks to impose harsher penalties for both adult and juvenile offenders. Of particular focus is the 1985 Youth Rehabilitation Act, which allows judges to grant lenient sentences to young adults under 25.
Donalds defended the bill, arguing that it would ensure adult criminals are treated as such, which he claimed was akin to the rest of the country.
However, the legislation faces significant hurdles in the Democratic-controlled Senate, where it would require 60 votes to advance due to the Senate filibuster. The Biden administration has also voiced strong opposition to the bill.
In a letter to House leadership, District leaders expressed concerns over the bill’s potential impact on home rule and local crime response. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D), D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), and Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb (D) warned that the bill would hinder their ability to address emerging crime trends by restricting their authority to change sentencing laws.
The bill has also drawn criticism from advocacy groups.
Liz Komar, Sentencing Reform counsel with The Sentencing Project, condemned the DC CRIMES Act as an assault on home rule and public safety, arguing that limiting the Youth Rehabilitation Act would exacerbate racial disparities and increase incarceration rates.
“If passed, this bill would prevent D.C. leaders from taking critical steps needed to improve public safety and protect District residents – including efforts to increase criminal penalties or create new categories of offenses,” Schwalb asserted. “This is pure political theatre from national politicians attempting to score points for their next hometown election.”
The debate surrounding the DC CRIMES Act underscores broader tensions between federal oversight and local autonomy, with implications for criminal justice reform and racial equity in the nation’s capital.
“By prohibiting the Council from enacting ‘any act, resolution, or rule to change any criminal liability sentence,’ the bill would prevent District policymakers from responding to emerging crime trends by enhancing criminal penalties, or even create new crimes,” Schwalb, Bowser, and Mendelson wrote.
“Swift and certain consequences are essential to deterring crime, and persistent congressional interference is at odds with that goal. Given recent experience, these delays could be extensive, preventing courts from imposing longer sentences while legislation languishes in Congress.”
[ad_2]
