Hell if I know,n gogogophers, I’m more curious as to what is the basis upon which everyone is saying they have the 60 votes in hand while Mitch seems to be less than 100% bigly on board.
From the *text *of the presented bill, it seems like it is very properly titled the “First Steps Act” as it only covers a *very *limited set of improvements about some specific issues, such as *slightly *reducing the rate of prolonged incarceration through such things as capping the maximum “three strikes” sentence and being more specific on the type of crime that qualifies for that, being more humane about terminal immates, putting limits to solitary for juveniles, and ordering a series of studies as to future programs to prevent recidivism and for prerelease risk evaluation. No discussion of changes in for-profit prison management, of reform of Asset Forfeiture (being left to SCOTUS to decide upon).
However, do bear in mind in the face of this, that until and unless there ARE the votes to bring it down to the floor, there remains the possibility of it being subject to amendments and to the attachment of riders in exchange for obtaining such votes, and that usually is where you and I get it up the uncomfortable entry point.
Sticking only to the presented text, I could see some concern on the left about the explicit inclusion of “faith-based” as a form of antirecidivism program, or about expanded markets for prison labor or insofar as some of the more favorable provisions NOT being retroactive to people convicted and sentenced under the more stringent prior law; while on the right of course there will be concern about being attacked from the* further-right* about any easing in punitive measures. Plus I’m sure on both sides there will be questions as to just what will be the criteria to calculate “good time” compliance in rehab programs and to grant rewards and incentives for participating; as well as concern that legislators may say “well, check the box, we’ve adressed CJ reform” and decide they need go no further.