Comments Document

Enclosed is a letter expressing concerns with HB 1558 and HB 1946 to provide information to the subcommittee on the unintended consequences of tobacco purchase, use and possession (PUP) laws.

The Virginia Victim Assistance Network supports this bill, HB1839.

Comments Document

Enclosed is a letter expressing concerns with HB 1558 and HB 1946 to provide information to the subcommittee on the unintended consequences of tobacco purchase, use and possession (PUP) laws.

I am in opposition to the bill focusing on potential conflicts with existing laws and legal precedents: 1. Conflict with Federal Law - Fair Sentencing Act of 2010: The bill contradicts the current federal framework established by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which set an 18:1 ratio for sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine, reflecting legislative intent to address but not completely eliminate the disparity. 2. Constitutional Concerns - Equal Protection Clause: Changing sentencing guidelines without comprehensive review could potentially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) showed the Supreme Court's reluctance to overturn laws based solely on statistical disparities without clear evidence of discriminatory intent. 3. Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines incorporate the 18:1 ratio. A change would require an overhaul of the guidelines, potentially leading to judicial confusion and inconsistency, conflicting with the advisory nature of guidelines post-United States v. Booker (2005). 4. State Law Variations: Many states have their own drug laws which might not align with a federal push towards complete parity. Sudden federal alignment could disrupt state legal frameworks. 5. Legal Precedent - Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015): This case reaffirms the principle of stare decisis. Critics might argue that overturning the established sentencing disparity should not be done lightly. 6. Public Policy and Resource Allocation: The current system provides a structured approach to sentencing. Changing this might necessitate significant retraining and budget reallocations. 7. Concerns Over Unintended Consequences: Without nuanced policy, the bill might lead to harsh outcomes in some scenarios, akin to Harmelin v. Michigan (1991). 8. Procedural Due Process - Legal Certainty: A sudden change might violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by creating uncertainty for those charged under the old laws. Thanks Lisa Fraser

I am in opposition to the bill focusing on potential conflicts with existing laws and legal precedents: 1. Conflict with Federal Law - Fair Sentencing Act of 2010: The bill contradicts the current federal framework established by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which set an 18:1 ratio for sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine, reflecting legislative intent to address but not completely eliminate the disparity. 2. Constitutional Concerns - Equal Protection Clause: Changing sentencing guidelines without comprehensive review could potentially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) showed the Supreme Court's reluctance to overturn laws based solely on statistical disparities without clear evidence of discriminatory intent. 3. Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines incorporate the 18:1 ratio. A change would require an overhaul of the guidelines, potentially leading to judicial confusion and inconsistency, conflicting with the advisory nature of guidelines post-United States v. Booker (2005). 4. State Law Variations: Many states have their own drug laws which might not align with a federal push towards complete parity. Sudden federal alignment could disrupt state legal frameworks. 5. Legal Precedent - Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015): This case reaffirms the principle of stare decisis. Critics might argue that overturning the established sentencing disparity should not be done lightly. 6. Public Policy and Resource Allocation: The current system provides a structured approach to sentencing. Changing this might necessitate significant retraining and budget reallocations. 7. Concerns Over Unintended Consequences: Without nuanced policy, the bill might lead to harsh outcomes in some scenarios, akin to Harmelin v. Michigan (1991). 8. Procedural Due Process - Legal Certainty: A sudden change might violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by creating uncertainty for those charged under the old laws. Thanks Lisa Fraser

Virginia Poverty Law Center (VPLC) supports Delegate Delaney's HB 1968. It extends the time from one to three years from the occurrence of the crime by which victims of crime may file for compensation from the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission. It also gives Commission staff leeway to consider the victim's circumstances and whether victims have a full protective order in determining whether the victim is eligible for an award.

Comments Document

Hello, Jacqueline Goad here. I am a labor trafficking survivor and survivor advocate with the Virginia Coalition Against Human Trafficking. I am writing and hopefully speaking in support of HB1968. My attached statement is a one page 620 word discussion of my attempts to seek help and cooperate with law enforcement only to be ignored and my trafficking facilitated by their tacit approval of my trafficker. It did not matter than I was trafficked nor did it matter that he was a Prince William Co. teacher with a documented history of touching small children while they slept. I could not obtain any cooperation from law enforcement, therefore I believe that victims should be required to cooperate with law enforcement to obtain compensation as the law enforcement they reach out to may very well continue to victimization they would seek compensation for. Thank you for your time, Jacqueline Goad Survivor Advocate Virginia Coalition Against Human Trafficking National Human Trafficking Hotline case no. 01229107