Re: House Floor Vote on November 9, 2005, regarding H.R. 1751, Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, we write to express our opposition to H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005. This legislation would create a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder in federal criminal cases, add numerous other discriminatory mandatory minimum sentences as well as expand the number of crimes eligible for the federal death penalty. H.R. 1751 is scheduled for a floor vote on Wednesday, November 9; we urge you to oppose this legislation.

The House Rules Committee has made a number of amendments in order for the floor debate on H.R. 1751; we urge your support for the following amendments:

1. Scott (VA) #8: This amendment replaces all mandatory minimum sentences with higher maximum sentences. This bill creates many new mandatory minimums and changes the criminal penalties for several existing federal crimes [c1] to mandatory minimum sentences. For instance, H.R. 1751 would make the punishment for second-degree murder a 30-year mandatory sentence. Mandatory minimum sentences deprive judges of the ability to impose sentences that fit the particular offense and offender. Although mandatory minimums were designed to reduce the racial inequalities that too often resulting from judicial sentencing discretion, in practice they shift discretion from the judge to the prosecutor. Prosecutors retain the power to plea bargain and choose which defendants they will offer plea agreements to in order for those defendants to avoid the mandatory penalty. It is not clear what standards (if any) prosecutors use to offer plea bargains, therefore only a few defendants get the benefit of avoiding the mandatory sentence. This creates unfair and inequitable sentences for people who commit similar crimes, thus contributing to the very problem mandatory minimums were created to address.

2.  Scott (VA) #9: This amendment strikes the death penalty for the killing of federally funded public safety officers. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 121 prisoners on death row have now been exonerated since 1973. Chronic problems, including inadequate defense counsel and racial disparities, plague the death penalty system in the United States. As a matter of principle, Congress should not be expanding the federal death penalty while these problems remain unresolved.

We urge you to oppose the following amendment:

1. Flake #2: This amendment would eliminate federal jurisdiction for all sentencing phase claims in habeas corpus proceedings, unless the claim went to the validity of the state conviction in a capital cases. For example, this would result in federal courts not having jurisdiction to review habeas petitions involving claims in state capital cases that were based on ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct during the sentencing phase of the case - errors that could mean the difference between life and death for the petitioner. In addition, this amendment would authorize the U.S. Attorney General to determine whether in a capital case a state's indigent defense counsel system passes constitutional muster. The Attorney General, our nation's top federal prosecutor, is not an objective party and therefore should not decide whether states have provided competent defense counsel in death penalty cases.

For the above-mentioned reasons, we urge members to oppose H.R. 1751 when the House votes on the bill on November 9, 2005.

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson
Director

Jesselyn McCurdy
Legislative Counsel