Bill Overview
Title: Combating Violent and Dangerous Crime Act
Description: This bill revises various statutes with respect to violent crimes and establishes new criminal offenses. For example, the bill (1) increases the statutory maximum penalty for carjacking, and (2) establishes enhanced criminal penalties for certain federal drug offenses involving the manufacture or distribution of candy-flavored controlled substances or similar products for minors.
Sponsors: Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in, accused of, or victims of violent crimes or drug offenses globally
Estimated Size: 2500000
- The bill targets individuals involved in violent crimes, particularly those involved in carjacking or distributing candy-flavored drugs to minors.
- Victims of violent crimes, such as carjacking, stand to benefit since the bill aims to deter such activities through increased penalties.
- Individuals associated with the manufacturing and distribution of candy-flavored controlled substances will be directly impacted by facing enhanced penalties.
- Law enforcement and judicial systems may see an increase in workload due to changes in enforcement and sentencing structures.
Reasoning
- The target population for the policy includes individuals involved in violent crimes or drug offenses, victims of these crimes, law enforcement, and associated judicial systems.
- The policy may have varying impacts on different segments of the population: deterring crime, enhancing safety, potentially leading to increased arrests, and impacting the judicial workload.
- Budget constraints may limit the reach of resources for prevention and enforcement in year 1, but they are projected to grow over the decade.
- Not everyone within the potential target group will be affected equally; some will have no change in wellbeing, depending on their direct involvement with crime or as victims.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Chicago, IL)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel like the new law is just going to make things harder for me to get back on track.
- I completed a rehab program, but now with harsher penalties, it's scarier to even accidentally mess up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Small business owner (New York, NY)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased penalties might make our neighborhood safer, which is something we all want.
- I hope this law is implemented effectively, without just filling prisons.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Police Officer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law gives us more teeth to deal with the candy-flavored drug problem.
- However, it could stretch our resources thin in managing increased case loads.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
High School Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything to stop drugs from filtering into schools is a good thing.
- But will more penalties just push it further underground?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Legal Aid Attorney (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new regulations can cause concerns for defendants who need rehabilitation, not just punitive measures.
- We could see an increase in case load, impacting our resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Drug Rehabilitation Counselor (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced penalties are good, but there must be more focus on rehabilitation and education.
- The law could appear overly harsh without adequate support systems in place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel safer knowing penalties are tougher for carjackers and drug dealers.
- Laws like this show progress towards a safer community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Tech Industry Worker (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The trauma from my carjacking experience makes me welcome harsher penalties.
- But it's also about rehabilitating offenders, not just punishing them.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Elementary School Teacher (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The law's harsher approach could prevent dangerous drug exposure to kids.
- But it also requires support systems to truly protect our children.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Community Organizer (Detroit, MI)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to address root causes, not just penalties.
- There must be educational and occupational reforms accompanying these legal changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $115000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $140000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $95000000, High: $145000000)
Year 3: $125000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 5: $140000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $165000000)
Year 10: $170000000 (Low: $135000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $230000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $280000000)
Key Considerations
- The increased penalties may deter crime, leading to long-term social benefits beyond direct fiscal impact.
- Initial administrative and implementation costs are high, with expected future offsets from reduced crime rates.