Overview
Title
To increase the penalty for prohibited provision of a phone in a correctional facility, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to make the punishment stronger for sneaking a phone into a prison, with up to 2 years in jail for people who do it. It also asks the prison bosses to check and make better rules to keep everyone in the prison safe.
Summary AI
The bill, identified as S. 5284, aims to increase penalties for supplying a phone illegally within a correctional facility. It amends the United States Code to specify harsher punishment of up to 2 years of imprisonment for such an offense. Additionally, it mandates the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to review and update policies regarding contraband to better safeguard inmates and prison staff. The bill is titled the "Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Stopping Prison Contraband Act."
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The bill, introduced in the U.S. Senate, seeks to increase penalties for individuals who unlawfully provide phones within correctional facilities. Officially titled the "Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Stopping Prison Contraband Act," the legislation amends Section 1791(b) of Title 18, U.S. Code. It specifies a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment for violations involving contraband phones. Additionally, it mandates the Bureau of Prisons to review and potentially update policies regarding inmates' handling of prohibited items within one year of the bill's enactment.
Significant Issues
A notable issue with the bill resides in the legal language used, particularly the phrase "if the object is specified in subsection (d)(1)(F)." This could create ambiguity if subsection (d)(1)(F) is not clearly defined elsewhere in the legal code, complicating enforcement. Similarly, the bill introduces changes in paragraph numbering within the legal code, which may result in confusion if consistent updates are not made throughout related documents.
Regarding the policy review mandate, the bill does not provide specific criteria for updating policies, nor does it outline mechanisms for oversight or accountability to ensure enhanced safety. Additionally, there is no set deadline for when these updated policies should be enacted, which could result in delays.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
The public might experience indirect benefits from the bill as it seeks to enhance security within correctional facilities by curbing contraband, potentially leading to safer environments both inside prisons and in surrounding communities. However, the overall impact may be limited by the aforementioned ambiguities and lack of clear guidelines.
Correctional facilities and staff could see positive outcomes if the bill leads to a reduction in contraband, thereby improving safety and operational efficiency. However, without clear oversight mechanisms, there might be skepticism about whether the intended improvements will be realized.
For inmates and their families, increased penalties could seem punitive, raising concerns about further challenges in maintaining communication if security measures become overly restrictive or lead to unintended consequences, such as isolating inmates further.
Overall, while the bill's intentions appear to aim at increased safety, its effectiveness may depend heavily on clear definitions, policy guidelines, and systematic oversight to fulfill its objectives without unintended negative repercussions.
Issues
Section 2: The phrase 'if the object is specified in subsection (d)(1)(F) of this section' might cause legal ambiguity if subsection (d)(1)(F) is not clearly defined elsewhere, which could lead to issues in the enforcement of the law.
Section 3: The lack of specified criteria for updating policies can lead to ambiguity in interpretation, undermining the effectiveness of efforts to improve protections for incarcerated individuals and staff.
Section 3: There is no mechanism or oversight specified to ensure that updated policies actually lead to improvements in protections for incarcerated individuals and staff, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.
Section 2: The provision involves redesignation of paragraph numbers which could potentially lead to confusion if these changes are not consistently updated throughout the document.
Section 3: The absence of a deadline for when the updated policies must be implemented may result in delays in their enactment, potentially affecting the timely enhancement of protections.
Section 3: The one-year period allowed for policy review might be seen as too lenient, possibly delaying urgent updates to policies regarding contraband in correctional facilities.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The act described in this section is called the “Lieutenant Osvaldo Albarati Stopping Prison Contraband Act.”
2. Prohibited provision of a phone Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines amendments to Section 1791(b) of title 18 of the U.S. Code, which involve changes in paragraph numbering and specify a penalty of up to 2 years in prison for certain violations involving unlawful provision of a phone, as well as adjustments to penalty language for another type of violation.
3. Review of policies Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is required to review and potentially update the policies concerning inmates involved with prohibited objects, within one year of the new law's enactment, to enhance safety for both prisoners and staff.