Latest news with #HB862
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Missouri's Truth-in-Sentencing Laws Stall in Legislation
ST. JOSEPH, Mo. (News-Press NOW) — Truth-in-Sentencing laws require people to serve a certain percentage of their sentence behind bars. In the past few years, Missouri has seen several bills related to Truth-in-Sentencing, some aiming to strengthen these laws and others focusing on reducing incarceration periods. Despite stalled bills and mixed opinions on whether longer sentences improve public safety, the Buchanan County Sheriff says they still support keeping the policy in place locally to keep criminals off the streets. 'When a judge says, 'I'm giving you X sentence,' then that's what should be served—not just a fraction of it,' said Buchanan County Sheriff Bill Puett. 'It's just not fair to the victims.' Opponents argue that Truth-in-Sentencing laws could increase prison populations and limit opportunities for rehabilitation or early release based on good behavior, while Missouri HB 728 seeks to establish programs that allow offenders to earn 50 or more days of good time credit. Additionally, some also argue that longer jail and prison sentences fail to deter crime or enhance public safety. 'It's important to consider circumstances from all angles,' said Puett. 'Simply put, when criminals are incarcerated, they can't commit crimes. While others may still be committing crimes, those in jail or prison are held accountable and no longer able to offend.' Puett also emphasized the importance of criminals serving their full sentence, particularly in cases involving violent or abusive partners. Missouri HB 862, which focuses on Truth-in-Sentencing, would require offenders with one or two prior felony convictions to serve 50% of their sentence, and those with three or more to serve 80%, keeping them incarcerated much longer. While these bills show little promise in the legislature, Puett says the Buchanan County jail will continue housing criminals as long as possible. Historically, when someone's sentenced to county jail, they serve most of their time,' Puett said. 'It's usually the full sentence or around 75%. Compared to prison, people in county jail tend to serve more of what the judge actually gave them and again, the importance in this is holding them accountable.'
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
State court strikes down two abortion laws passed in '23
Photo illustration by Getty Images. A Lewis and Clark County District Court judge has struck down two abortion bills passed into law in 2023 by the Montana Legislature and signed by Gov. Greg Gianforte, saying they violated the constitutional rights of women by subjecting those on Medicaid to onerous, unnecessary and possibly dangerous steps in order to receive an abortion. Judge Mike Menahan leaned heavily on decades' worth of court decisions which covered very similar ground, but said requirements put into law in 2023, were unnecessary and treated women who were struggling financially differently just because they elect to have an abortion. The laws were nearly immediately halted by the courts. Meanwhile, the state had argued that the Legislature had a legitimate interest in health and safety of women and infants, while also being allowed to choose what procedures the state covers through its government-supported healthcare programs. House Bill 544 and House Bill 862 would have barred abortions by any other provider than a doctor, eliminating advanced care providers. It would would have required a pre-authorization approval, a physical examination, and 'extensive supporting documentation' including a provider having to justify why the procedure is 'medically necessary.' Some of that documentation included personal questions including how many pregnancies the woman had previously had — something not required of other patients, including other Medicaid recipients who chose to carry the pregnancy to term. HB 862 would have prohibited abortions for Medicaid patients unless the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or the mother was 'in danger of death.' Menahan found once Montana agrees to running a medical assistance program, it can't then decide which medical procedures it condones. 'The relevant inquiry is not whether the right of privacy requires the state to fund abortions, but whether, having elected to participate in a medical assistance program, the state may selectively excluded from such benefits otherwise eligible persons solely because they constitutionally protected healthcare decisions with which the state disagrees,' the ruling said. Menahan found that additional steps and burdens the new laws placed upon pregnant women were not justifiable. For example, requiring an in-person abortion, or requiring a physician, rather than an advanced-practice nurse or doctor's assistant, was not justified when medical research proves no basis that physicians are better at abortion procedures or in-person abortions lower the risk. 'The undisputed facts likewise establish that the prior authorization requirements in the rule and HB 544 do not address a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk. The unrequited testimony establishes that the requirements would require patients to make an extra in-person visit to a healthcare provider for a physical examination,' Menahan wrote in his opinion. 'The physical examination would result in delays that harm patient health; and would in practice ban direct-to-patient medication abortions which have been done safely via telehealth for years without the need for any in-person visit. 'The state admits it has no evidence that medication abortions provided via telehealth are any less safe or effective than abortions provided in-person. Further, the state has failed to demonstrate that the requirements for prior authorization are narrowly tailored to effectuate any state interest.' Menahan also drew on Montana's robust and still-growing case law when it came to HB 862, which would narrow when abortions could be an option for Medicaid patients, only allowing for it in cases of rape, incest or the woman's life is in danger. The court found that HB 862 was nearly identical to a case decided in 1995, Jeannnette R. vs. Ellery. 'Jeannnette R. declared unconstitutional a regulation that did the very same thing,' Menahan wrote. 'And the court has no reason before it to disturb the holding of that case.' The groups which waged the legal fight against these laws, including Planned Parenthood of Montana, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, Blue Mountain Clinic and All Families Healthcare, put out a joint statement after receiving the ruling on Tuesday afternoon: 'Every Montanan deserves the ability to access quality, timely healthcare, regardless of where they live or how much money they make. We are relieved that these dangerous restrictions have been struck down for good, and that patients will continue to have the access that these laws would have forbidden. The government has been relentless in their attempts to undermine healthcare without a thought for the consequences of for patients' health and lives. Montanans made their voices heard last year when they voted to further protect abortion rights, sending a clear message that politicians have no place in exam rooms. With this win, we will continue our fight to ensure everyone in Montana can make their own decisions about their own lives.' Abortion 23 measures decision 031225
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Real public safety in Missouri is about more than just creating longer prison sentences
(). The Missouri General Assembly is at a crossroads this legislative session as their constituents demand they do something, almost anything, to put a stop to violent crime. It's no secret that Missouri ranks in the top 10 states in the U.S. for both violent crime and property crime, and several Missouri communities lead the nation with high crime rates. As lawmakers consider solutions, what's most important: looking tough or getting dangerous criminals off the streets? Proposals that claim to be tough on crime could do more harm than good with the policies of House Bill 862, House Bill 314 and House Bill 389 focusing on increasing Missouri's minimum sentencing. Almost tripling the number of felons required to serve extended prison terms would cost billions of taxpayer dollars, overcrowd Missouri's current prisons or require new ones. All of these bills also ignore the thousands of violent criminals in Missouri slipping through the cracks. The Missouri Department of Corrections underscores these issues in a fiscal note stating that HB 862 would mean a total of 6,674 additional people in Missouri prisons, with the other two proposals adding 3,637 to prisons. With more than 23,000 people in state prisons, the department's website states: 'Our correctional facilities are over capacity and projected to continue growing.' In contrast, in 2022, an astonishing 62% of violent crimes reported to police across Missouri have gone unsolved. Ask yourselves, would a criminal worry that lawmakers might tack on extra years to a prison sentence, or do they prefer the odds they'll never be caught? Missouri already has some of the strictest sentencing laws in the nation, requiring dangerous felons to serve 85% of their sentences, and anyone with three or more previous felonies serving 80% of their sentences. Both HB 314 and HB 389 would increase punishments for people who have committed their first or second felony. This is a misguided approach to lock up first-time, non-violent offenders with hardened criminals. And it could potentially derail the good work already happening at the department of corrections, which has reported a decrease in recidivism over the past three years. Data consistently shows that the strongest deterrent to crime is the probability of getting caught. Unsolved crimes embolden criminals and leave victims vulnerable. I'm a mom, and I know that if I stick my toddler in time-out for five minutes instead of three minutes, it won't prevent him from drawing on the walls or other undesirable behavior. Instead, it's knowing that he will be caught that deters his future bad behavior. At risk of simplifying a complex issue — and tarnishing my 4-year-old's reputation — there are plenty of smarter approaches to address Missouri's public safety concerns than simply extending punishments. Other states have attempted to use minimum sentencing increases with disastrous results. In Wisconsin, for example, similar policies increased the prison population by 14% and drove corrections costs over $2 billion. In Georgia, mandatory sentences made prisons more violent and increased crime rates after release. Some alternative solutions in other states that actually work include Texas and North Carolina as they've pioneered alternative response units, allowing law enforcement to focus on violent crimes leaving non-violent situations in the hands of mental health professionals and social workers. Lawmakers in Tennessee and Arkansas offer state grants to local law enforcement to help police departments fund staffing, new equipment, and enhanced investigative techniques and training. The right tools can empower law enforcement to clear more cases and restore public confidence in their work. Expanding the use of advanced DNA testing, facial recognition, and crime hot-spot identification can speed up investigations and solve cases faster. Reducing backlogs in crime labs and updating outdated systems can help solve more cases. The solution to Missouri's crime problem lies not in creating longer sentences but in increasing clearance rates and supporting law enforcement with the tools they need to protect the citizens they serve. With the right resources and targeted legislation that promises proven results, we can reverse the trend of declining clearance rates and create a safer future for Missouri communities.
