Removing mandatory minimum sentences

Image
Body

SANTA FE, N.M. – The republican Party of New Mexico did not waste time accusing Democrats in Santa Fe of “Sid[ing] with rapists and remov[ing] punishment for such sex predators,” when attacking proposed House Bill 140. The bill seeks to remove some mandatory minimum sentences within the court system, a move the Democratic caucus claims will return sentencing power to judges.

House Bill 140, introduced by representative Karen Bash (D – Bernalillo), is making its way through the state legislature and as of press time was awaiting an appointment in the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee.

What does the bill do?

The bill addresses an array of criminal acts and their specific sentencing structure.

The first section of the House Bill 140 tackles the particulars of sentencing for poachers and unlawful hunting. It sets specific fines for hunting identified categories of animals or designations, like “big game.”

The second section of the bill addresses Criminal Sexual Penetration. In the bill CSP is being used as an umbrella term as pertaining to adult and child in the incident. The current law imposes a mandatory 10-year minimum sentence for these crimes if they are not pleaded down to a lesser charge. Specifically, current law imposes a three-year mandatory sentence for CSP of a minor.

In the third section of the bill language is also struck that allows the courts to remove the current sentence of felons who committed CSP, meaning that the courts cannot reduce someone’s sentence.

The remaining six sections of the bill deal with other criminal sexual acts, parole breakers, and restraining order violations.

Deliberately hidden?

The NMGOP press release argued that the bill intentionally misleads the public by beginning the changes to the law with poaching charges. In the state legislature changes to existing law are drafted by using the text of the original law, the original law is structured with game and fish issues on top. According to the New Mexico House Democratic caucus nothing was deliberately hidden as this bill simply follows existing structured law.

Despite NMGOP’s opinion, the fact is that House Bill 140 was written and drafted in accordance with the law and there was not, according to state Democrats, any intention to hide anything.

“We are aware of robust debate around the intent, which is to reform mandatory minimum sentences and restore discretion to judges. We look forward to that debate in its assigned House committees that have experience in examining changes in sentencing,” said the press office of House Speaker Brian egolf (D – Santa Fe).

Reaction

Groups across New Mexico had opinions about this bill after it had been submitted, but emotions began to flare after the NMGOP press release.

The New Mexico Administration Office of the District Attorneys argue that these sentencing options should remain in place, and that the mandatory minimums should not be removed.

The New Mexico law Offices of the Public Defender have argued that the mandated minimums for these crimes need to be removed to stop “coerced pleas.”

Where will the bill go?

Before the bill makes it to a vote on the floor, it must pass the House Consumer and Public Affairs, and then pass the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill will then be debated on the House floor and if passed through, it begins the process again in the New Mexico Senate. If it makes it all the way through the senate it will go to the governor’s office for a signature to make it the new law.

Rep. Bash can be contacted at 505-238-2117.