Bill Overview
Title: Domestic Terrorist Murder Act (DTMA) of 2022
Description: This bill requires life imprisonment without parole or death for domestic terrorist murder. Domestic terrorist murder is murder committed by an individual (1) who is a member of a criminal street gang; or (2) who is or has been associated with an organization or group that has caused more than $500,000 in damages by virtue of protests, riots, or other destructive actions.
Sponsors: Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals associated with criminal gangs or groups causing significant damages
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The law categorizes individuals convicted of domestic terrorist murder as individuals who either have gang affiliations or are linked with organizations causing significant property damage.
- There are criminal street gangs and organizations involved in protests or riots globally, but not all regions have the same number of such groups or individuals.
- The legislation primarily targets individuals within a legal system applying the bill, which is the United States, given the context.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically addresses individuals involved in extreme criminal activities, either through gang affiliations or association with destruction-causing protests. The immediate target is relatively small compared to the general population, but it is significant within the niche affected by criminal behaviors.
- Estimating self-reported well-being is complex, as it depends on the perceived personal safety and justice from non-affected citizens, potential deterrence effects, and direct impacts on those close to individuals targeted by the policy.
- There are economic considerations, especially in urban areas where gang activities and large-scale protests have been prominent. Financial resources required for prison expansion and justice system enhancements through this policy are significant, impacting public expenditure priorities.
Simulated Interviews
Police Officer (New York City, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an officer, I believe this policy could deter potential criminals involved in severe acts, especially amid gang conflicts.
- The threat of life imprisonment or death may lead to reduced violence over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Community Organizer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The law might be too harsh and could lead to more mistrust within communities, potentially affecting young people who feel targeted.
- There might be better ways to address root causes, like youth programs and education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Ex-gang member and reformed activist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy doesn't address the reasons why people join gangs or get involved with destructive protests in the first place.
- There should be more focus on rehabilitation and integration.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Retail Worker (Portland, OR)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need to prevent destruction, but I'm concerned about the implications on freedom of expression and assembly.
- Heavy penalties might not stop desperate individuals.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Alabama)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't affect my day-to-day life at all.
- I support tough measures for those committing serious crimes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
School Principal (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this could make schools safer if fewer youth choose gang life.
- Still, these policies don’t replace the need for more social services and education funding.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law feels like it could be misused against legitimate protestors, risking fair treatment.
- I'm worried it categorizes activism too harshly at times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Judge (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe tough measures are necessary to protect the public from extreme criminal acts.
- However, the judicial system must ensure fairness in applying such severe punishments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing safety would help my business recover and budget better.
- I support measures that prevent such destructive actions quickly and effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Gang member (Houston, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With harsher penalties looming, it might deter some gang activities.
- However, those deeply involved might just go deeper underground.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $74000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32960000, High: $76960000)
Year 5: $58334400 (Low: $35545600, High: $83084800)
Year 10: $68674208 (Low: $41888448, High: $97940992)
Year 100: $164214115160 (Low: $100718933256, High: $234118782064)
Key Considerations
- High court and incarceration costs associated with life imprisonment without parole and death penalty cases.
- Potential deterrence effects are uncertain and may not result in significant savings or crime reduction.
- Population impacted by this law is a very small subset of the total group defined as 'criminal gangs and organizations causing significant damage.'