ACTION ALERT: information from Women Against the Registry

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 recommendation s 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

9 comments for “ACTION ALERT: information from Women Against the Registry

  1. annoymous
    October 29, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    This is truly scary and yet I’ve waited for this day to come along. Essentially they are trying to justify why some people who aren’t on the registry for life should be, even though they were not convicted of a violent crime. The fact that this is retroactive screams of punishment since it will incapacitate people and their families for the rest of their lives.

    The sentencing commission knows better than this. They have Troy Stabenow’s research. They’ve had experts testify that the laws are excessive surrounding this area of the law. We need to make our voices heard as loud as we can before the Nov. 12th deadline. Even if you aren’t directly effected by this, a lot is at stake. We cannot allow them to change terminology to fit their agenda so that they can pass a set of retroactive punitive laws that provide for a slow, painful death. Please, please, please, make your voice heard!!!

  2. scott
    October 29, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    This is dangerous to society and this isn’t making it any safer. If someone wanted to ask for help on this very issue of addiction they would automatically be hauled off to jail.

    • Paul
      October 30, 2015 at 1:56 pm

      Actually you’re right, at least in California. Therapists have a mandatory duty to report Thought-Crime; that is, if someone has obsessive and addictive thoughts on this very issue and they tell their therapist. Think about that; a person cannot go to their therapist until AFTER they are arrested. Sounds like a society that wants to catch people, not one that wants to help them to gain control without the help and intervention of Big Brother. I’m sure other states will follow California’s example. How people can get professional help with their issues while this type of climate persists is beyond anyone’s guess. Though people should seek help, I can understand where they would be hesitant.

      • Anonymous
        November 3, 2015 at 5:12 am

        You are now Guilty until proven Innocent.

        Especially when you freely ask for help in that case right? Mean while the fear mongers will cry each time something as a tragedy of molestation or rape occurs. You cannot expect people to change as they are threatened to be locked up for asking for help. Where their is Help their is Hope.

  3. Mom
    October 30, 2015 at 3:10 am

    I wrote and printed a dozen letters, with pre-addressed stamped envelopes, then asked my friends, and those close to me and/or believe in preserving the rights and dignity of individuals to fill out the few parts that were left blank. (the personal information & signature) Placed the letter in an envelope and mailed them myself. I understand this is not the “ideal” way to get letters sent, but I personally believe that even “form” letters with REAL people’s names and information can still make a difference. I’ve sent almost 22 letters this way. I also wrote a google doc which is pre-filled out (except personal info) which can be filled and printed then sent, which I’ve shared with my friends and family far away.
    I think if every person interested in change can share and get a few other signatures we combine our voices… one day we can be so loud no one can ignore us….

  4. Will Bassler
    October 30, 2015 at 8:24 am

    when doing something like this I suggest using colored envelopes as well as soft pastel paper for the letter another good idea is to use sheets with letterheads on them this tends to make it look like is coming from organizations not to single individuals.

    • Chris
      October 30, 2015 at 8:33 am

      Again I do not think what you are all looking at is new. Just today the USSC just posted online the new 2015 book and that exact same verbiage is already there but it is only concerning immigration! Here is the new 2015 link….

      http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2015/2015-chapter-2-l-x#2l12

      Please make sure you are not making a mountain out of a molehill. They are not trying to add CP as a violent offense outside of §2L1.2

Comments are closed.