Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4876

Bill Overview

Title: Felony Murder for Deadly Fentanyl Distribution Act

Description: This bill makes the distribution of fentanyl resulting in death a first degree murder. An individual who is guilty of first degree murder by distributing fentanyl is subject to death or life in prison.

Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]

Target Audience

Population: Fentanyl distributors and their immediate community

Estimated Size: 45000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Unemployed (Philadelphia, PA)

Age: 35 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The new law is terrifying because the stakes are so high now with distributing fentanyl.
  • I think this might actually make some people more cautious about dealing.
  • It's hard to know if people will really stop because of this.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 4
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 5 2

Community Organizer (Dayton, OH)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this policy saves lives and deters those distributing this deadly drug.
  • However, more effort should go into prevention and rehabilitation too.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 5 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 6 3

Local police officer (Rural Kentucky)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This law might help curb overdose deaths, giving us more tools to fight drug trafficking.
  • It is crucial that we implement it carefully to avoid unfair persecutions.

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 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 5

College Student (New York, NY)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While this policy aims to target major distributors, it might disproportionately affect lower-level dealers.
  • Reform should also focus on education and rehabilitation opportunities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 5

Public Defender (San Francisco, CA)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about the potential for increased caseloads and the fairness of trials under this policy.
  • The policy could deter crime, but it may also lead to further overcrowding in prisons.

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 4 5
Year 10 4 5
Year 20 4 5

High School Counselor (Chicago, IL)

Age: 48 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think this policy might make parents feel more at ease about their children's safety.
  • However, education and prevention should still be priority.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Judge (Houston, TX)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could act as a significant deterrent, but will rely heavily on careful implementation.
  • Ensuring fair trials will require increased resources.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 6 6
Year 20 5 6

Healthcare Worker (Los Angeles, CA)

Age: 43 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While reducing fentanyl distribution is vital, focusing on treatment and prevention will be more effective.
  • Stricter penalties might not deter all criminals.

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 5 5

Reformed Gang Member (Baltimore, MD)

Age: 32 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Most people involved in fentanyl trade are not aware of the severe penalties until it's too late.
  • Education can play a much bigger role than stringent laws.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 5
Year 2 5 4
Year 3 5 4
Year 5 5 3
Year 10 5 3
Year 20 4 3

Retired (New Orleans, LA)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If this law reduces the drugs on the streets, it would be worth it.
  • I'm concerned that it may not address root causes and poverty.

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 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 2: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)

Year 3: $170000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $220000000)

Year 5: $185000000 (Low: $135000000, High: $235000000)

Year 10: $205000000 (Low: $155000000, High: $255000000)

Year 100: $305000000 (Low: $255000000, High: $355000000)

Key Considerations