In part yes; in part no. That is to say, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia just read the section, it prohibits the Council from enacting changes to existing criminal liability sentences. It does not prevent the D.C. Council from creating new crimes, like an organized retail crime act. It would prevent them from increasing sentences-- Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. As I understand the answer, the District of Columbia would not be able to increase the penalty for rape or the penalty for murder or the penalty for child sex abuse. We might have a difference as to your second conclusion because, of course, it is increasing a criminal sentence to create a criminal sentence or offense where it didn't exist in the first place. In any event, you are creating grave constitutional doubt about new criminal offenses that might be created in the District of Columbia with this legislation. In any event, the first part is bad enough. The point is that, how is it tough on crime to say that the District of Columbia, as the gentleman just conceded, cannot increase criminal penalties if it chooses to in response to local circumstances? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
On the recordMay 15, 2024
Share
More from Dan Bishop
Mar 20, 2024
With the expansion of CBP One, however, I know that the administration, once again, intends on only managing the public perception of illegal immigration instead of actually securing the border.
Feb 6, 2024
Many have said what the issue is. Many have mischaracterized it, in my judgment. The issue presented by the Articles of Impeachment and why they should be adopted by the House is not a matter of policy, it is not a matter of…
Apr 12, 2024
The Crenshaw amendment would expand FISA's definition of foreign intelligence to encompass international drug crimes. FISA is a counterintelligence and counterterrorism tool. It is limited to that purpose. The clear distinction between…





