Bill Overview
Title: Stop Gun Criminals Act
Description: This bill increases the term of imprisonment for certain offenses involving firearms, particularly those that are committed by repeat offenders.
Sponsors: Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
Target Audience
Population: repeat firearm offenders and their families
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill focuses on increasing penalties for repeat firearm offenders.
- The primary individuals affected will likely be those who have been previously convicted of firearm-related offenses.
- The legislation may create a deterrent effect, impacting individuals who may consider committing crimes with firearms.
- Law enforcement officers and the judicial system may also be indirectly affected due to changes in handling gun-related crimes.
- Communities affected by gun violence may see indirect impacts if the bill effectively reduces repeat gun offenses.
Reasoning
- The Stop Gun Criminals Act focuses largely on individuals with repeat firearm offenses, which means the direct impact might be limited to a particular subset of the population, mainly repeat offenders. Law-abiding citizens likely wouldn't notice much direct effect from this policy.
- The allocated budget will primarily cover costs associated with increased incarceration rates, such as longer prison sentences, increased facilities, and potentially more stringent law enforcement processes.
- Given the specified budget, this only allows for a certain number of additional prisoners. With an average cost of incarceration around $36,300 per year per inmate (based on BJS statistics), the policy could accommodate about 27,548 additional prisoner-years with the year 1 budget.
- Preventive deterrence effects may extend benefits to communities impacted by gun violence, assuming the law acts as a deterrent. The improvements in wellbeing here would likely be indirect through reduced firearm crime rates.
- Family and social networks of repeat offenders may experience increased hardships due to longer imprisonment of family members, negatively affecting their wellbeing.
- The impact scale from 'none' to 'high' centers around those most directly impacted by the policy's implementation and those indirectly benefited or harmed by resultant systemic changes.
Simulated Interviews
Ex-offender (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have turned my life around, but this policy is harsh on people trying to change.
- Offenders need rehabilitation and support, not just longer sentences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Law enforcement officer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might make our streets safer if it keeps repeat offenders off the streets longer.
- It might help deter those thinking about committing a gun crime.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Community activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Longer sentences might not be the answer; we need more focus on prevention and youth programs.
- This could break families further, rather than fix problems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Judge (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may help reduce gun crime, but it could also overcrowd prisons.
- There will be more cases outright demanding longer sentences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Prison warden (Memphis, TN)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could increase my workload immensely.
- Facilities will need more resources to accommodate longer sentences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Student (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that reduces gun violence is positive, but are longer sentences the most effective way?
- Programs in schools might be more beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Mother of an imprisoned repeat offender (Detroit, MI)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy only makes my situation worse, keeping my family apart longer for the same mistakes.
- It won't change his past actions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Criminologist (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The evidence on deterrence through harsher penalties is mixed.
- Socioeconomic factors should be addressed.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College student (Denver, CO)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act could shift focus from rehabilitation to punishment.
- Public opinion might favor it, but what are the long-term societal costs?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public defender (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy means more of my clients will face harsher penalties, impacting their lives significantly.
- We need balance between punishment and rehabilitation opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1020000000 (Low: $820000000, High: $1220000000)
Year 3: $1040400000 (Low: $840400000, High: $1240400000)
Year 5: $1082432000 (Low: $882432000, High: $1282432000)
Year 10: $1173093856 (Low: $973093856, High: $1373093856)
Year 100: $29661743810 (Low: $24661743810, High: $34661743810)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of deterrence in reducing gun crimes among repeat offenders.
- Increased costs to the prison system and whether facilities can handle longer-term incarcerations without expansion.
- Community impacts in terms of safety and economic stability if the bill successfully reduces repeat offenses.
- Potential legal and social challenges related to the perceived fairness of harsher penalties.