Committee votes in Annapolis are fair game in assessing any legislator’s performance. But after investigating Delegate Ben Kramer’s (D-19) House Judiciary Committee votes further, we believe that the context of some of these votes must be considered.
1. Hate Crimes
Kramer voted against HB 80 2008 in committee, the “No Nooses Act,” a bill sponsored by Delegates Saqib Ali (D-39) and Herman Taylor (D-14) that would have prohibited the placement of nooses on another person’s property because of their race or other demographic characteristics. But Kramer voted in favor of HB 41 2008, a bill that would have outlawed both nooses and swastikas, on the House floor. Kramer is also the lead sponsor of a bill that would prohibit hate crimes on the basis of age, gender and disability.
2. Inmate Diminution of Credits
Kramer voted against three 2008 bills that prohibited child rapists, child sex offenders and violent criminals from earning “diminution credits” (which are awarded for good behavior while in prison and used to reduce sentences). But he did vote for a 2008 bill establishing minimum sentences for second-time child sex offenders. And this year, Kramer is the lead sponsor of two bills that limit diminution credits for primary drug, violent and sexual offenders and violent criminals.
3. Reporting Lost or Stolen Firearms
Kramer voted against HB 880 2008 in committee, a bill that requires gun owners who have their weapons stolen to report the thefts or go to jail. The bill was requested by the Baltimore City Government. In fact, the bill was voted down overwhelmingly in committee because it imposed threats of jail time against crime victims – in other words, people whose guns were stolen. Members in both parties agreed the bill imposed an unreasonable burden on victims, especially some who may not even know of the thefts for long periods of time.
Committee votes matter and should be posted on the Internet. State legislators should not get passes on them. They should expect scrutiny on committee votes just as they receive on floor votes. But context matters too, as the above analysis demonstrates.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Kramer’s Committee Votes: Context Matters
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
See? Placing legislation -- whether actually passed into law or rightly killed in committee -- into context is to impose reasonableness onto raw data.
Always beware of lawyers who try to hand you a stack of data stripped of all context other than that which they wish to provide you to sway you to supporting only their side of the argument. While stacking the deck might be acceptable to riverboat gamblers and other cheaters, it shouldn't be accepted in the political debate.
That list of Kramer's "failures" amounts to the sort of thing you expect from the neighborhood harpy of the sort that defames someone by telling everyone something that's completely true but hardly the complete truth.
"That SOB shot his own dog, that's what kind of man he is!" declares the harpy, and defies you to disbelieve her. But once the harpy and her fangs have gone, the astute individual will discover that the harpy lies only by omission but that's one of the most terrible lies of all.
The man did in fact shoot his own dog... after it got into the highway and was clipped by a semi rolling 80. The character of the man is upheld as just and humane; but one must wonder if the harpy's rage is that she was denied an opportunity to bask in the sound of some mortal whimpering had there been nobody with the remedy for the dog's terminal agony.
So he voted three times to stop child sex offenders from being released early in committee where he thought no one would find out. Then the following year, he sponsors a bill stopping early release of second time offenders.
This raises two questions. One is why didn't he sponsor this bill when he wasn't running in a special election.
Two, does he think its okay for one time child sex offenders to be released early? These are major questions in my book.
Add to this the fact that he voted against a bill that would classify those caught with possessing child pornography as sex offenders. Once again in committee when he thought the vote was hidden.
Add in that just with week he voted for that horrid legislation to protect those who committed spousal abuse. He is clearly putting the criminal ahead of the victim with his work on the Judiciary Committee.
--David Goodman
Ah, David Goodman cleverly provides us with no bill numbers, nor context.
Why, exactly, are you out to get Ben Kramer?
Keep in mind that I am running against him in the Special Election, but personally I prefer to give people credit where credit is due, as well as condemnation where that would be due.
For example, if he's supposedly being lenient on "child sex offenders". Now, do you mean that the sex offenders themselves were minor children? For example, instances of "bad touch" between 13-year-olds? Or are you talking about someone over the age of 18 who has sexual contact with someone under the age of 16 years? Or are you talking about the sort of person who is a 25-year-old itinerant laborer who leads police on an interstate chase after being accused of raping an 8-year-old?
Marcos Danilo Reyes Banegas, of no fixed address, assaulted the acquaintance Feb. 16 in Woodbridge and has been charged in warrants with rape, forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual battery and indecent liberties with a minor, police said.
He is Hispanic, about 5-foot-2 and 154 pounds with short black hair and brown eyes, police said. He has ties to Woodbridge, Alexandria and Gaithersburg and is driving a 2004 Pontiac Grand Am with Maryland tags 2DWK45. He is a Honduran national and might try to flee the country, police said.
If Ben Kramer is trying to pass laws to make sure that someone like this gets time off for good behavior, any decent person would be disgusted. But because of your total lack of context as you spit out "facts", I somehow suspect that the law in question wasn't concerned with this sort of thing. Care to supply some context?
Didn't think so.
There is no need to provide bill numbers. They are the same bills mentioned in the main post by Adam.
The overall record by Mr. Kramer is one in which he puts the interests of rapists and sex offenders ahead of children. He is the one who should answer for that. The onus in on him. He must also answer the question of why he didn't sponsor tougher sentencing for these offenders until the year he is running for election for the Council race. Its very fishy.
--David Goodman
Ah, David, from the main post (by this I guess you mean the one to which we presently respond):
2. Inmate Diminution of Credits
Kramer voted against three 2008 bills that prohibited child rapists, child sex offenders and violent criminals from earning “diminution credits” (which are awarded for good behavior while in prison and used to reduce sentences). But he did vote for a 2008 bill establishing minimum sentences for second-time child sex offenders. And this year, Kramer is the lead sponsor of two bills that limit diminution credits for primary drug, violent and sexual offenders and violent criminals.
Adam does provide a link to the bills that Kramer did support or sponsor, but in the quote above, there's no mention of the bills he voted to table.
Are you talking about the list circulated by Jonathan Shurberg, reposted by Adam here? Probably you are. So let's look at that...
Pro-Criminal: HB619 2008 – Kramer voted to kill a bill that would’ve stopped the early release of child rapists: “Prohibiting the earning of diminution credits to reduce the term of confinement of an inmate who is serving a sentence in a State or local correctional facility for committing first degree rape, second degree rape, first degree sexual offense, or second degree sexual offense against a child under the age of 13 years; etc.”
Try following the link to the MLIS site and try reading the fiscal and policy notes. This was a "truth in sentencing" addendum to a "Jessica's Law". The bill would have covered very few people, according to the fiscal/policy notes, as the vast majority of prisoner records held by Department of Corrections contain no information about the age of the victim. The bill as written could have imposed massive fiscal burdens on the State/DoC to research all of the court records for age-of-victim data, so as to apply the law to the specific population the law is intended to affect. Basically, "huge expense to affect very few inmates".
Pro-Criminal: HB252 2008 – Kramer voted to kill a bill that would’ve stopped the early release of child sex offenders: “Prohibiting the earning of diminution credits to reduce the term of confinement of a specified offender or a child sexual offender committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction or sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a local correctional facility; etc.”
This one evidently got dropped because of its lack of specificity to the particular offenses covered. Evidently it wasn't considered fair to strip diminuition credit at the same rate from someone doing 90 days in a local jail for being 19 and kissing a 15-year-old, and someone serving 99 years for forcible sodomy of an infant.
Pro-Criminal: HB621 2008 – Kramer voted to kill a bill that would’ve stopped the early release of those convicted of murder, rape, or other violent crimes: “Prohibiting the earning of diminution credits to reduce the term of confinement of an inmate committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction or sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a local correctional facility if the inmate has been convicted of murder, rape, or a second or subsequent commission of specified crimes of violence.”
This one rightly got short shrift because it's effectively just plain stupid. For most of the crimes involved, there are already statutory provisions regarding term of imprisonment which effectively preclude earning diminuition credits. For example, someone convicted of first-degree murder gets life, or death; if dead, diminuition credits won't be applied, and the life sentence doesn't allow them. Duh. Stupid bill.
David, absent any context -- for which read "read the reasons why the bill was tabled" -- don't condemn someone for voting against a bill that was ineffective, demands outrageous expense to be enforceable, or adds egregious penalties to minor offenses that are only thematically related to major offenses for which the penalties would be good and just.
On the other hand, it's pretty tacky to suggest that supporting/sponsoring a bill -- one that allows/requires mandatory maximum sentence on second offense for first-degree rape, or sexual offense against a child under thirteen -- is mere opportunism. Clearly these crimes happen and clearly that means that the previous sentences were inadequate.
Now, as to why I am taking the time to defend Ben Kramer when I should be out pounding the pavement looking for votes, well, it's not about defending Ben Kramer, it's about defending honesty and integrity in presentation of voting records.
Shurburg is disingenuous to condemn without analysis. What would be disingenuous on your part would be to repeat his mistake even more than the one time that you just did. But now that this has been laid to rest, perhaps you can go dig up some new dirt that's actually dirty.
Your characterization of these votes just isn't accurate. If the first bill affects one inmate, it is worthy to keep those people off the street.
If Kramer was really concerned about the instance of a 19 year old with a 17 year old, he could have offered an amendment instead of just voting to kill the entire bill.
On the third issue, not all rapists are not eligible for early release under current law. That was the point of the legislation. You just aren't being honest here.
--David Goodman
Post a Comment