From Overcriminalized.com:
Table of Contents
New:
•S. 3643: Oil Spill Response Improvement Act of 2010
•S. 3663: Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act of 2010
•S. 3669: Food Safety Enforcement Act of 2010
•S. 3671: Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety and Health Act of 2010
•S. Amendment 4514:
•S. Amendment 4545:
•H.R. 5920: Toxic Metals Protection Act of 2010
•H.R. 5942: FFSCC Act of 2010
•H.R. 6000:
Updates:
•H.R. 5663: Miner Safety and Health Act of 2010
•H.R. 5662: STALKERS Act of 2010
•H.R. 5626: Blowout Prevention Act of 2010
•H.R. 5138: International Megan's Law of 2010
•S. 3516: Outer Continental Shelf Reform Act of 2010
•H.R. 2868: Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009
•H.R. 2780: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2009
•H.R. 725: Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2009
•H.R. 5810: Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 3643: Oil Spill Response Improvement Act of 2010
Sponsor: McConnell (R - KY)
Official Title: A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to reform the management of energy and mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, to improve oil spill compensation, to terminate the moratorium on deepwater drilling, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/22/2010: Introduced in Senate
7/26/2010: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would impose post-employment restrictions on officers and employees of the Department of the Interior (DOI) who “directly or indirectly discharge[] duties or responsibilities under this Act.” A two-year ban would apply to knowingly representing, communicating with the intent to influence, or knowingly aiding or advising any person with respect to any matter “which was actually pending under his official responsibility as an officer or employee within a period of one year prior to the termination of such responsibility or in which he participated personally and substantially” before or to any department, agency, or court of the United States. The bill has a separate one-year post-employment ban that would apply to such actions before or to DOI and its officers or employees. In addition, an officer or employee of DOI would be barred from “participating personally and substantially” in any matter in which a family member, a general partner, an organization in which he serves or with which he is negotiating for employment has a financial interest. The bar would extend to matters in which a person or entity for which the officer or employee has served as an officer, employee, or agent within the preceding one-year period has a financial interest. Any person who engages in the prohibited conduct would be subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both, and any person who does so “willfully” would be subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a Title 18 fine, or both.
S. 3663: Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act of 2010
Sponsor: Reid (D - NV)
Official Title: A bill to promote clean energy jobs and oil company accountability, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/28/2010: Introduced in Senate
7/29/2010: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill appears to be a vehicle for a conglomeration of legislation, including S. 3466, the Environmental Crimes Enforcement Act of 2010, sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy. Section 3663A of Title 18, U.S. Code, mandates that those convicted of certain crimes pay restitution to the victims of those crimes. The relevant portion of this bill, and S. 3466, would add a wide range of conduct prohibited by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act, to the list of crimes for which a court must order restitution as part of the sentence. Because restitution would be mandatory, federal courts would not have the discretionary authority to decide in any case that restitution is unwarranted. Under 33 U.S.C § 3319(c), any person who “negligently” or “knowingly” violates a number of provisions of the Clean Water Act can be prosecuted. In addition, any person who “knowingly” violates any of those provisions and “who knows at the time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury” is subject to increased punishment.
S. 3669: Food Safety Enforcement Act of 2010
Sponsor: Leahy (D - VT)
Official Title: A bill to increase criminal penalties for certain knowing violations relating to food that is misbranded or adulterated.
Status:
7/29/2010: Introduced in Senate
7/29/2010: Referred to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Commentary: Section 331 of Title 21, U.S. Code, prohibits, among other things, the adulteration or misbranding of food and the introduction or delivery for introduction and receipt in interstate commerce of adulterated or misbranded food. It also prohibits tampering with the label of food “while such article is held for sale . . . after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article being adulterated or misbranded” as well as putting unsafe dietary supplements into interstate commerce. Section 333(a) of Title 21 establishes the penalty for a violation of § 331 as imprisonment for up to 1 year, a fine of up to $1,000, or both for a first offense, and imprisonment for up to three years, a fine of up to $10,000, or both for a subsequent offense or for a violation committed with the intent to defraud or mislead. This bill would add a new subsection to 21 U.S.C. § 333(a) that would establish the punishment for the “knowing” violation of those subsections of § 331 that relate to adulterated or misbranded food as imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both.
S. 3671: Robert C. Byrd Mine and Workplace Safety and Health Act of 2010
Sponsor: Rockefeller (D - WV)
Official Title: A bill to improve compliance with mine and occupational safety and health law, empower workers to raise safety concerns, prevent future mine and other workplace tragedies, establish rights of families of victims of workplace accidents, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/29/2010: Introduced in Senate
7/29/2010: Referred to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Commentary: This bill appears to be a Senate bill that combines portions of H.R. 5663 and H.R. 5778. As with H.R. 5663, it would significantly lower the mental state required to prove a violation of a mandatory health and safety standard and increase the penalties for violating 30 U.S.C. § 820(d). That provision currently prohibits “willfully” violating a mandatory mining health or safety standard or “knowingly” violating or refusing to comply with certain orders issued by the Secretary of Labor. This bill would significantly lower the protectiveness of the mental state required to prove a violation of a mandatory health and safety standard from “willfully” to “knowingly.” Violators are currently subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to $250,000, or both on the first conviction, and imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $500,000, or both for subsequent violations. This bill would increase the penalty for first violations to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $1,000,000, or both, and the penalty for subsequent violations to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of $2,000,000, or both. As with H.R.5778, this bill would also make it unlawful to retaliate against anyone who has provided information “related to the existence of a health or safety violation or an unhealthful or unsafe condition, policy or practice” to enforcement officials. The penalty for that offense would be imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both. The bill would increase the penalty that may be imposed on any unauthorized advance notice of any health or safety inspection to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both, from the current penalty of imprisonment for up to 6 months, a fine of $1,000, or both, as set forth in 30 U.S.C. § 820(e). Finally, as with both bills, where a business entity is responsible for the violation, 30 U.S.C. § 820(c) would be amended to provide that a director, officer, or agent of a corporate violator who “knowingly authorized, ordered, or carried out” the conduct leading to the violation would be subject to prosecution to the same extent as the corporation. This provision will not necessarily be interpreted by the courts to require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the director, officer, or agent had any actual knowledge that what he or she authorized, ordered, or carried out was unlawful.
S. Amendment 4514:
Sponsor: McConnell (R - KY)
Official Title:
Status:
7/26/2010: Introduced in Senate
Commentary: This Amendment is offered with respect to H.R. 5297, which would create the Small Business Lending Fund, and would add a division that may be cited as the “Oil Spill Response Improvement Act of 2010.” It appears that this Amendment was broken out into the stand-alone bill, S. 3643. As with S. 3643, it includes provisions that would impose post-employment restrictions on officers and employees of the Department of the Interior who “directly or indirectly discharge[] duties or responsibilities under this Act.” A two-year ban would apply to knowingly representing, communicating with the intent to influence, or knowingly aiding or advising any person with respect to any matter “which was actually pending under his official responsibility as an officer or employee within a period of one year prior to the termination of such responsibility or in which he participated personally and substantially” before or to any department, agency, or court of the United States. A separate one-year post-employment ban would apply to such actions before or to DOI and its officers and employees. In addition, an officer or employee of DOI would be barred from “participating personally and substantially” in any matter in which a family member, a general partner, an organization in which he serves or with which he is negotiating for employment has a financial interest. The bar would extend to matters in which a person or entity for which the officer or employee has served as an officer, employee, or agent within the preceding one-year period has a financial interest. Any person who engages in the prohibited conduct would be subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both, and any person who does so “willfully” would be subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a Title 18 fine, or both.
S. Amendment 4545:
Sponsor: Boxer (D - CA)
Official Title:
Status:
7/20/2010: Introduced in Senate
Commentary: Much like Senate Amendment No. 4488 introduced by Senator Boxer, this Amendment is proposed for H.R. 5297, which would create the Small Business Lending Fund Program. A participating lender that “knowingly makes a false statement with respect to the income, assets, or other qualifications of a small business concern” in connection with a loan or loan application would be subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $500,000, or both.
H.R. 5920: Toxic Metals Protection Act of 2010
Sponsor: Speier (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution in commerce of children’s products containing excessive cadmium, chromium, barium, or antimony, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/29/2010: Introduced in House
7/29/2010: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
Commentary: This bill appears to supersede H.R. 4428, another bill sponsored by Representative Dreier that prohibited the use of cadmium, barium, or antimony in children’s products. Section 1263 of Title 15 lists a broad set of prohibited conduct involving hazardous substances, and 15 U.S.C. § 1264 provides for civil and criminal penalties for violations. As with H.R. 4428, this bill adds children’s jewelry containing more than specified amounts of cadmium, barium, or antimony to the list of banned hazardous substances. This bill would also add products containing more than a specified amount of chromium to the list of banned hazardous substances. The first offense would be a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to 90 days, a fine of not more than $500, or both. A second or subsequent violation or an offense committed with the intent to defraud or mislead is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, a fine as determined under Title 18, or both.
H.R. 5942: FFSCC Act of 2010
Sponsor: Baca (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to create a charter for Federal Financial Services and Credit Companies.
Status:
7/29/2010: Introduced in House
7/29/2010: Referred to House Financial Services Committee
Commentary: This bill purports to establish a “vibrant, safe, and commercially viable market for underbanked [sic] and unbanked [sic] individuals to gain access to financial services and products.” The bill would authorize the Comptroller of the Currency to charter Federal Financial Services and Credit Companies and imposes a series of vague, broad duties on FFSCCs. An FFSCC would be required, for example, to “mak[e] financial literacy materials available to is customers,” “assist[] customers in building and improving their credit scores,” and “[h]ave a primary mission of providing a comprehensive array of financial services to the underbanked, unbanked, and consumers with low credit scores.” The bill has a blanket criminal provision that would subject “[w]hoever knowingly violates any provision” of the bill or “any regulation issued pursuant to this section” to imprisonment for up to 3 years, a fine of up to $20,000 “for each day such violation continues,” or both.
H.R. 6000:
Sponsor: Grayson (D - FL)
Official Title: A bill to provide for criminal liability for the denial of health care coverage of a treatment or an individual, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/30/2010: Introduced in House
7/30/2010: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
7/30/2010: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
Commentary: Under this bill, “[a]ny responsible officer or employee of an insurance entity that engages in a denial of coverage under a health plan” in violation of the federal laws governing health insurance plans would be subject to imprisonment for up to 1 year, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both. The bill would define a denial of coverage to cover both enrolled individuals and individuals seeking enrollment. Any “responsible officer” would include anyone who makes the decision to deny coverage or care, designs “the institutional policies of the insurance entity that resulted in the denial of coverage or care,” “[m]aterially” influences the policy or decision, or engages in “[a]ny other conduct that constitutes an offense under this Act, including any related offense under section 2 of title 18, United States Code.” If the prohibited conduct results in death, the responsible officer or employee would also be subject to punishment for manslaughter. Section 1112(b) of Title 18, U.S. Code, provides for the punishment of both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, but the bill itself refers generally only to “manslaughter.” Anyone convicted of manslaughter is subject to imprisonment for up to 8 years for involuntary manslaughter and for up to 15 years for voluntary manslaughter, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both.
H.R. 5663: Miner Safety and Health Act of 2010
Sponsor: Miller (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to improve compliance with mine and occupational safety and health laws, empower workers to raise safety concerns, prevent future mine and other workplace tragedies, establish rights of families of victims of workplace accidents, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/1/2010: Introduced in House
7/1/2010: Referred to House Education and Labor Committee
7/13/2010: Hearing Held by House Education and Labor Committee
7/21/2010: Mark up in the House Education and Labor Committee
7/21/2010: Ordered to be reported
7/29/2010: Reported to House House Education and Labor Committee
7/29/2010: Placed on House calendar
Commentary: Section 820(d) of Title 30, U.S. Code, currently prohibits “willfully” violating a mandatory mining health or safety standard or “knowingly” violating or refusing to comply with certain orders issued by the Secretary of Labor. This bill would significantly lower the protectiveness of the mental state required to prove a violation of a mandatory health and safety standard from “willfully” to “knowingly.” Violators are currently subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to $250,000, or both on the first conviction, and imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $500,000, or both for subsequent violations. This bill would increase the penalty for first violations to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine of $1,000,000, or both, and the penalty for subsequent violations to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of $2,000,000, or both. Under 30 U.S.C. § 820(c), a director, officer, or agent of a corporate violator who “knowingly authorized, ordered, or carried out” the conduct leading to the violation is subject to prosecution to the same extent as the corporation. This provision will not necessarily be interpreted by the courts to require the government to prove that the director, officer, or agent had any actual knowledge that what he or she authorized, ordered, or carried out was unlawful.
H.R. 5662: STALKERS Act of 2010
Sponsor: Sanchez (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, with respect to the offense of stalking.
Status:
7/1/2010: Introduced in House
7/1/2010: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
7/27/2010: House passage of amended bill under suspension of rules.
7/28/2010: Received in Senate
7/28/2010: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: Section 2261A(1) of Title 18, U.S. Code, presently makes stalking illegal when the prohibited conduct involves “travel[] in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enter[ing] or leav[ing] Indian country.” This bill would make stalking unlawful when the conduct occurs “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” It would define stalking as conduct engaged in “with intent to kill, physically injure, harass, or intimidate a person . . . that causes or attempts to cause bodily injury or serious emotional distress” or “occurs in circumstances where the conduct would be reasonably expected to cause the other person serious emotional distress.” This bill would also provide for the enhancement of the punishments for any violation, which are presently set out in 18 U.S.C § 2261(b), in specified circumstances. If the conduct involves the violation of a protective order or if the victim is under the age of 18, the term of imprisonment that may be imposed would be increased by up to 5 years.
H.R. 5626: Blowout Prevention Act of 2010
Sponsor: Waxman (D - CA)
Official Title: A bill to protect public health and safety and the environment by requiring the use of safe well control technologies and practices for the drilling of high-risk oil and gas wells in the United States, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/29/2010: Introduced in House
6/29/2010: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
7/15/2010: Mark up in the House Energy and Commerce Committee
7/15/2010: Ordered to be reported House
7/29/2010: Reported to House
Commentary: This bill would, beginning one year after its enactment, require applicants for permits to drill for a “high-risk well” to attest to the capacity of their blowout prevention and remediation ability and call for the promulgation of regulations specifying the minimum standards for blowout preventers, third-party certifications, and documentation. Any person who “knowingly and willfully” violates any provision of the act or any regulation that implements it, makes a false statement in a document that is filed or required to be filed, or falsifies or tampers with a required monitoring device will be subject to imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of up to $10 million, or both. Under the bill, an officer or agent of a corporation that is subject to prosecution who “knowingly and willfully, or with willful disregard” orders or carries out the prohibited activity is subject to prosecution to the same extent as the corporation. This provision will not necessarily be interpreted by the courts to require the officer or agent to have actual knowledge that what he or she authorized, ordered, or carried out was unlawful.
H.R. 5138: International Megan's Law of 2010
Sponsor: Smith (R - NJ)
Official Title: A bill to protect children from sexual exploitation by mandating reporting requirements for convicted sex traffickers and other registered sex offenders against minors intending to engage in international travel, providing advance notice of intended travel by high interest registered sex offenders outside the United States to the government of the country of destination, requesting foreign governments to notify the United States when a known child sex offender is seeking to enter the United States, and for other purposes.
Status:
4/26/2010: Introduced in House
4/26/2010: Referred to House Foreign Affairs Committee
4/26/2010: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
7/27/2010: Reported to House House Foreign Affairs Committee
7/27/2010: Reported to House House Judiciary Committee
7/27/2010: Placed on House calendar
7/27/2010: House passage of amended bill under suspension of rules.
Commentary: This bill would create a federal registry for convicted sex offenders who travel abroad. The bill would also require U.S. diplomatic missions in foreign countries to establish and maintain country-wide sex offender registries for sex offenders from the United States who temporarily or permanently reside in each country. An offender’s “knowing” failure to comply with the reporting requirements of these registration systems “after being duly notified of the requirements” would be punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both.
S. 3516: Outer Continental Shelf Reform Act of 2010
Sponsor: Bingaman (D - NM)
Official Title: A resolution to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to reform the management of energy and mineral resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/21/2010: Introduced in Senate
6/21/2010: Referred to Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
6/24/2010: Hearing Held by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
6/30/2010: Ordered to be reported
7/28/2010: Reported to Senate
7/28/2010: Placed on Senate calendar
Commentary: This bill would impose post-employment restrictions on officers and employees of the Department of the Interior (DOI) who “directly or indirectly discharge[] duties or responsibilities” under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. A two-year ban would apply to knowingly representing, communicating with the intent to influence, or knowingly aiding or advising any person before or to any department, agency, or federal court with respect to any matter “which was actually pending under his official responsibility as an officer or employee within a period of one year prior to the termination of such responsibility or in which he participated personally and substantially.” The bill has a separate one-year post-employment ban that applies to such actions before or to DOI and its officers and employees. In addition, an officer or employee of DOI would be barred from “participating personally and substantially” in any matter in which a family member, a general partner, an organization in which he serves or with which he is negotiating for employment has a financial interest. The bar would extend to matters in which a person or entity for which the officer or employee has served as an officer, employee, or agent within the preceding one-year period has a financial interest. Any person who engages in the prohibited conduct would be subject to imprisonment for up to one year, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both, and any person who does so “willfully” would be subject to imprisonment for up to 5 years, a Title 18 fine, or both.
H.R. 2868: Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009
Sponsor: Thompson (D - MS)
Official Title: To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism against chemical facilities, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of wastewater treatment works, and for other purposes.
Status:
6/15/2009: Introduced
6/15/2009: Referred to House Homeland Security Committee
6/15/2009: Referred to House Energy and Commerce Committee
7/13/2009: Reported as amended by House Homeland Security Committee
7/13/2009: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
10/23/2009: Reported as amended by House Energy and Commerce Committee
10/23/2009: Discharged House Judiciary Committee
11/6/2009: House Passage
11/9/2009: Received in the Senate
11/9/2009: Referred to Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
3/3/2010: Hearing Held by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
7/28/2010: Mark up in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
7/28/2010: Ordered to be reported Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
Commentary: This wide-ranging bill includes numerous provisions increasing federal control over the security of chemical facilities, water supplies, and wastewater treatment processes. Among other things, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate certain chemical substances as “substances of concern” based on potential adverse effects resulting from a terrorist incident and directs the Secretary to identify the terrorism risk of specified chemical facilities and water systems, to establish vulnerability assessment standards, and to require facilities to submit assessments and site security plans. The bill designates these vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and related documentation as “protected information.” The legislation requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop regulations and permits the Administrator to issue orders “as necessary to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of protected information.” The bill provides for criminal penalties of up to one year imprisonment and/or criminal fines for the unlawful disclosure of protected information “in knowing violation of the regulations and orders.”
H.R. 2780: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2009
Sponsor: Rooney (R - FL)
Official Title: A bill to correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of Title 18, United States Code.
Status:
6/9/2009: Introduced
6/9/2009: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
7/27/2010: House passage of amended bill under suspension of rules.
7/28/2010: Received in Senate
7/28/2010: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: This bill amends 18 U.S.C. § 1752 to remove the “willfully” mens rea term from the offenses of entering or remaining on any “restricted building or grounds,” absent the authority to do so; obstructing ingress to or egress from any “restricted building or grounds”; and intentionally impeding or disrupting “the orderly conduct of federal government business or official functions . . . in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds." “Restricted building or grounds” is defined expansively as “a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds (A) where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be visiting or (B) so restricted as an event designated as a special event of national significance.” Both the existing and the amended versions of 18 U.S.C. § 1752 include a criminal offense for acts of violence, committed with criminal intent, against “any person or property in any restricted building or grounds.” This offense overlaps with or is duplicative of several other offenses in the U.S. Code that criminalize intentional acts of physical violence.
H.R. 725: Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2009
Sponsor: Pastor (D - AZ)
Official Title: A bill to protect Indian arts and crafts through the improvement of applicable criminal proceedings, and for other purposes.
Status:
1/27/2009: Introduced
1/27/2009: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
1/27/2009: Referred to House Natural Resources Committee
12/2/2009: Hearing Held by House Natural Resources Committee
12/16/2009: Mark up in the House Natural Resources Committee
12/16/2009: Ordered to be reported House Natural Resources Committee
1/15/2010: Discharged House Judiciary Committee
1/15/2010: Placed on House calendar
1/19/2010: House passage of amended bill under suspension of rules.
1/20/2010: Received in Senate
3/26/2010: Placed on Senate calendar
6/23/2010: Senate Passage
7/26/2010: House Passage
7/29/2010: Signed by the President
Commentary: As introduced, this bill was titled the Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2009. It was identical to H.R. 7024 and S. 1255 in the 110th Congress and S. 151 in the current Congress and reduced penalties for some violations of the prohibition on misrepresenting goods for sale as having been produced by Native Americans. As passed by the Senate, the bill would not only reduce penalties set out in 18 U.S.C. § 1159 for some violations of the prohibition on misrepresenting goods for sale as having been produced by Native Americans, it would also change the sentencing powers of Native American tribal courts. With respect to misrepresentation, under current law, "knowing" violations are punishable by criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years for a first offense, and by criminal fines of up to $1,000,000 and imprisonment of up to 15 years for subsequent offenses. This legislation would change the penalty structure in two ways. First offenses concerning goods worth less than $1,000 would be punishable by fines of up to $25,000 and imprisonment of up to a year, and fines for subsequent offenses would be calculated under Title 18 rather according to the fines defined under this new penalty scheme. With respect to the sentencing powers of Native American tribal courts, current law does not permit a tribal court to impose a term of imprisonment greater than 1 year, a fine of $5,000, or both. Under the bill as passed by the Senate, a tribal court would be able to sentence a defendant who has previously been convicted of the same or a comparable offense by any jurisdiction in the United States, or a defendant who is being prosecuted for an offense comparable to an offense that would be punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year if prosecuted by the United States or any of the States to imprisonment for up to three years, a fine of $15,000, or both. Even when multiple charges are involved, the tribal courts would be unable to impose imprisonment longer than 9 years. Significantly, nothing in the bill as passed by the Senate would give a Native American tribe criminal jurisdiction over a non-Native American. Tribes have been empowered to exercise criminal jurisdiction over any Native American, including those who are not members of the tribe, since 1990.
H.R. 5810: Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2010
Sponsor: Lungren (R - CA)
Official Title: A bill to amend Title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for aiming laser pointers at airplanes, and for other purposes.
Status:
7/21/2010: Introduced in House
7/21/2010: Referred to House Judiciary Committee
7/27/2010: House passage of amended bill under suspension of rules.
7/28/2010: Received in Senate
7/28/2010: Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Commentary: The bill would make it unlawful for any person to “knowingly aim[] the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, or at the flight path of such an aircraft.” The bill does not safeguard those who aim a laser at an aircraft or its flight path accidentally, inadvertently, or with benign intent. By its terms, the bill would not prohibit the aiming of a laser beam at an aircraft by, for example, authorized individuals conducting research, development, operations, testing, or training (or even by a person using the laser to send an emergency distress signal). The penalty for unlawfully aiming a laser at an aircraft would be imprisonment for up to 5 years, a fine as authorized by Title 18, U.S. Code, or both.
"Overcriminalization" includes applying criminal sanctions to conduct that traditionally has not been considered inherently wrongful, federalizing crime that properly belongs under state jurisdiction, and attaching criminal penalties without criminal intent. Reasonable people may disagree whether any specific bill included in the Legislative Update Alert is an abuse of criminal law or is in fact justified. Nevertheless, the Legislative Update Alert includes all bills our researchers have identified that add or enhance federal criminal penalties. Please visit us at Overcriminalized.com
No comments:
Post a Comment