Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Crimes in the U.S.
Introduction
Contrary to US civil law, the nation’s criminal law represents a legal system which deals with penalizing those who perpetrate criminal offenses. Among the many criminal laws of the nation is its 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act or, simply, crime bill. The bill’s enactment was, in a number of ways, characteristic of the tough-on-criminals bipartisan campaign of the latter part of the past century. The bill included numerous positive provisions like greater law enforcement accountability and fresh protections for those victimized by perpetrators of sexual abuse/assault and domestic violence; however, it was believed to worsen the racial gap in involvement in the criminal justice arena (Moore, 2017). Hence, this paper attempts at ascertaining the desired impact of the aforementioned crime bill, as well as court interpretation of the act through examining different aspects of the bill.
History of crime bill
The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act or bill was formulated by presidential candidate for the 2020 elections, Joe Biden (a senator at that time). The Congress passed the bill and it was signed into law by the president of the time, Bill Clinton. The act served to allocate several billion dollars towards hiring more law enforcement officials and expanding the nation’s prison systems. It was partially a reaction to horrifying criminal incidents during those years, like the shocking mass shootings that took place in California and Waco, Texas, among other places. A greater number of criminal offenses were categorized, at the federal level, as those calling for a death sentence. Immigration-linked crimes, gangster crimes, hate crimes, and sex crimes were defined and categorized as well, under the law (United States Congress, 1994). Furthermore, the Act financed a larger number of crime prevention initiatives, which included initiatives aimed at counteracting violent acts against females. Still further, the act did away with prisoner Pell grants as well as other academic initiatives for prisoners. At present, certain entities are advocating for the reestablishment of jail academic initiatives and prisoner Pell grants. Finally, the law included establishment of boot-camp- like youth institutions. The enactment of the crime bill resulted in a significant growth in inmate population and a lowering of crime rates in the nation (Shannon, 2019).
Prior to the year 1994, American crime rates grew steadily and sharply right from the ‘60s to the middle of ’70s decade; this corresponds with the growth in utilization of crack cocaine and heroin in the nation. The former drug was quick to become inner-city gangsters’ choice of drug for trading owing to its inexpensive production and selling price, high addiction, affordability and ease of transport. Although the growth in violent offenses wasn’t essentially linked to those who consumed the drugs themselves, it was linked to monetary and territorial clashes between different gangs involved in the US drug trade (The Establishment, 2016). This served to increase gangs’ control in different localities, besides their ability of recruiting new gang members and providing for them. Between the middle of the ‘70s decade and the early ‘90s, violent offense rates continued to be steadily high; the national homicide rate peaked, in the year 1980, and reached 10.2 for every 100,000 individuals (The Establishment, 2016).
The crime bill regulated the criminal offenses listed below:
· Sex offenses: The act led to the creation of the US sex offender registry.
· Weapons of assault: A federal-level ban was made on manufacturing particular types of semi-automatic guns. 
· Drugs: Federal release prisoners were compulsorily tested for drugs.
· Repeat offenses: The bill instituted a 3-strikes-and-you’re-out initiative to increase punishments and sentences for repeat criminals.
Lastly, convicts weren’t allowed to work in the insurance sector.
The intended impact of the crime bill
The biggest criminal law in the nation’s history, the 1994 crime bill basically dealt with every criminal justice area, on federal as well as state levels. A few of the main aspects of the act are listed below (The Establishment, 2016; United States Congress, 1994):
· A bigger police force: This act called for recruiting 100,000 more law enforcement officials
· Allocation of 9.7 billion dollars towards new prisons
· Allocation of 6.1 billion dollars towards crime prevention initiatives
· New crime decrees and definitions linked to gang crime, immigration-connected offenses, hate crimes, and sex crimes
· The creation of sixty novel federal-level death penalty crimes, including terror activities, drive-by shooting murders, and carjackings leading to a person’s death
· Revoking of prisoner Pell grants towards higher education
· Officially-sanctioned juvenile criminal “boot camps”
· Addition of fifty more federal offenses, which include gang membership
· The “three strikes” law, that mandated life sentence without parole for those convicted more than thrice for drug trafficking or serious violent crime
· Greater fund allocation towards women’s shelters, reinforced restraining order safeguards across the nation, and institution of a National Domestic Violence Hotline
Application of the Crime Bill in the courts
The Crime Bill of 1994 was applied by courts for the prosecution of offenses such as drug trafficking. In the 1999 Sepulveda v. United States case, a single-count prosecution charged the petitioner and co-defendant with conspiring to import over 500 g of the drug, cocaine, from Colombia, violating 21 U.S.C. section 963 and opposed to sections 952(a) and 960(a) (1) of 21 U.S.C. (cocaine is a schedule II narcotic substance). The petitioner petitioned on the provision known as "safety valve", i.e., 18 U.S.C. section 3553(f), which was added by the 1994 crime bill’s section 80001(a) and was initially effective under its Guidelines as of 23rd September, 1994. The court concluded the case by not depriving the petitioner of effective aid of counsel pertaining to "safety valve" provision as part of USSG section 5C1.2 and pertaining to all counsel-provided sentencing estimates. 
In the 1995 Raymond Derrial Madden v. United States of America case, the petitioner basically argued that one of the provisions of the 1994 crime bill that was put into effect from September of that year, namely, 18 U.S.C. 3553(f), ought to be applied retroactively for the reduction of his sentence. But whether or not the provision had to be retroactively applied wasn’t required to be addressed as the petitioner failed to meet a number of application preconditions, that is: he wasn’t penalized under minimum mandatory penalty; akin to the 1993 United States v. Madden case, he was evaluated 2 points (for managing, organizing, leading, or supervising); and he failed to prove that he had provided the government with information or to meet the subsection (f) (5) condition. Hence, the 2255 motion of the petitioner was effectively denied by the court.
In the 1998 United States of America v. Joanne Kwi Ye Estes case, Hawaiian state inmate, Joanne Kwi Ye Estes, appealed, pro se, the denial of 28 U.S.C. section 2255 motion by the district court, and challenged her pleaded-guilty sentencing for conspiring to possess and distribute the drug, crystal meth. The convict argued that she wasn’t provided effective aid of counsel, with her lawyer not being able to fight for sentence adjustment for playing a minor part in the offensive act, and not filing an appeal notice. Here, one point to bear in mind is that the convict abandoned her argument of not receiving effective aid of counsel as her lawyer couldn’t seek continuance and await the 1994 "safety valve" provision’s passage owing to failure to raise the contention upon appeal.
The Effects of the Crime Bill
The 1994 crime bill’s discernable impacts are still a contentious subject. But the majority of sources concur that it at most modestly contributed to decreasing violent offenses; according to the majority of figures, a maximum five-percent decline in violent offenses was witnessed following its enactment. Another point of contention is its influence on general imprisonment rate. Figures reveal that a dramatic growth in imprisonment rates, particularly imprisonment of African-American men, began during the 70s; the federal drug war and related laws were enacted in the next decade, with the punishment for usage and distribution of crack cocaine increased (The Establishment, 2016).
Nevertheless, despite these confusing details, one can draw a few potential correlations and theorize causations. The crime bill of 1994 did correspond with a dramatic rise in prosecutor harshness whilst prosecuting offenses. The potential of offenses leading to charges of felony on the part of the prosecutor grew twofold from 1994 to 2008. One simply cannot say, though, whether the above trend was stimulated by the crime bill’s “pro-imprisonment” sentiment, or merely reflecting that sentiment.
Inmates being unable to pursue higher education whilst completing their sentence (because of the Pell grant prohibition) meant they were left with far less resources, upon being set free, to build themselves a crime-less, productive life than before (Shannon, 2019). Youngsters who were incarcerated at the age of 18, when they were foolish though could learn, left prison world-weary, cynical, and unable to gain employment a decade later.
One may strongly content that the 1994 crime act continued criminalizing African-Americans and drug abuse/addiction, resulting in disproportionate mass imprisonment of Latino and African American males. This strategy is only now being corrected and replaced with novel strategies to address the extant heroin epidemic. Conclusions may be drawn regarding the difference of strategy from racial differences of individuals mainly impacted by addiction to heroin, as opposed to crack cocaine.
Lastly, clearly, the huge rise in new prison financing is, at the very least, partly to blame for a whopping 1.5 million (or more correctly, a whole generation) of missing African-American males (The Establishment, 2016), potentially influencing the present for-profit jail industry.
References
Raymond Derrial Madden, Petitioner-appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-appellee, 64 F.3d 669 (10th Cir. 1995)
Sepulveda v. United States, 69 F. Supp. 2d 633 (D.N.J. 1999)
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Joanne Kwi Ye Estes, Defendant-appellant, 166 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 1998)
United States v. Madden, No. 92-6206 (10th Cir. Apr. 20, 1993), WL 332262 Books and article
Moore, R. (2017). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. Macat Library.
United States Congress. (1994). Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Public law, (103-322).
Websites
The Establishment. (2016, April 12). About That Controversial 1994 Crime Bill. A Medium Corporation. Retrieved from https://medium.com/the-establishment/about-that-controversial-1994-crime-bill-c17ccfcc25fa
Shannon, R. (2019, May 10). 3 Ways the 1994 Crime Bill Continues to Hurt Communities of Color. Center for American Congress. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/05/10/469642/3-ways-1994-crime-bill-continues-hurt-communities-color/