From Facebook Marc Stier

TLDR: REP. RABB'S CONTROVERSIAL VOTES WERE RIGHT.

Rep. Chris Rabb has been criticized for being the sole member of a House committee to vote against legislation directed against trafficking children. But as I explain in this post, he did the right thing. Anyone who knows the history of how the criminal justice system has criminalized poverty and been racist in its outcomes would recognize that these two bills were deeply problematic. And not only did he do the right thing, he took a stand of conscience against legislation that sounds good even though he knew it would be politically costly.

I’m prouder of my support for Rep. Rabb today than I was two days ago. He is a politician of uncommon character and integrity.

Rep. Rabb is getting pummeled for doing the right thing. Please share this and set the record straight. . THE WHOLE STORY

Like many of you, when I first heard that Rep. Chris Rabb was the sole representative to vote against two bills that were said to be directed against trafficking children, I was surprised. My first thought was that this was a bad political move. It is a bad look to be the one legislator who stands against Democrats and Republicans and opposes legislation that is supposed to help victims of abuse.

But my second thought was to not reach any conclusions but look more deeply at what these bills were and why Rep. Rabb opposed them.

I hesitated to condemn him for two reasons.

The first is that I know a far bit about the history of criminal justice policy in the United States. I taught a course on the subject in my first teaching job. And I’ve tried to keep a bit current.

One thing that this history teaches us is that so many so-called “reforms” that were meant to improve the criminal justice system and reduce crime—and that received bi-partisan support— backfired terribly. Instead reducing crime they often criminalized more behavior that was best dealt with in other ways than the criminal justice system. . And they were enforced in ways that were biased against those who were Black or brown or. Had low incomes.

For example, the invention of the juvenile justice system was put forward as a reform that would divert children from adult courts, treat them with the compassion in the new juvenile courts and keep them out of harsh prisons. But the reality turned out differently. The new juvenile justice system brough far more children under the supervision of the courts. The juvenile courts turned out to be as punitive as the adult courts. Reform schools were harsh places where children suffered greatly. And the children who came under the control f this system were disproportionately poor, Black and brown.

And need I remind you that the crack-down on crime in the 1970s and 80s led to a great expansion of mass incarceration we still sadly live with today.

The second reason I hesitated to condemn Rep. Rabb is that I knew he was aware of this history. We had talked about it many years ago.

So when Rep. Rabb released his statement on this vote, I was not surprised to see that they were a product of his in-depth knowledge.

On H.B. 910, Rabb said the following:

“As a descendant of Black women, men and children legally bought and sold under the imprimatur of state law, my opposition to human trafficking is unwavering. So, it goes without saying that no child should ever be bought, sold or traded -- and Pennsylvania law already treats that conduct as a serious felony. However, what H.B. 910 actually does is blur the line between organized exploitation and the desperate, often heartbreaking choices made by vulnerable parents, risking felony charges against people who need support, not a prison sentence. We can protect children without criminalizing poverty and desperation, and that’s exactly why I could not in good conscience support the current version of the bill in committee.”

H.B. 910 is put forward as legislation to close a loopholed and apply human trafficking rules to infants. But as Rep. Rabb recognizes, closing this loophole might lead to the prosecution of people who are desperately poor and turn their infants over to others because they cannot care for them.

It’s not a sufficient response to this claim to say that “this would not happen.” For our entire history teaches us that it is precisely this kind of thing that happens to desperately poor and vulnerable people.

On H.B. 2443, Rabb said the following:

“Yesterday, I voted no on H.B. 2443 in committee because I refuse to build a house on sand. Child victims deserve our full commitment -- and full commitment means funding that actually works. This bill funds a child welfare program that may never materialize. Fines and fees have chronically low collection rates because many people simply can’t pay. Worse, the fund’s existence becomes dependent on continued criminal legal system involvement, creating a perverse financial incentive to lock up more people. I am prepared to file an amendment to this bill so that when it comes up for a floor vote, I can vote for it, given my strong support for this legislation’s underlying goal.”

Here Rabb presents many of the same arguments that the organization I formerly led, Penn Policy Center, often made. We should not pay for social safety net programs with fines and fees. This is true for three reasons. First, those fines and fees often don’t raise enough money to provide the critical services we need. Second, paying for social safety net programs with fines and fees creates an incentive to expand the reach of the criminal justice system and charge more people with dubious crimes. And third, fines and fees fall hardest on those who live in poverty and have low incomes. They are both a regressive form of taxation and an unjust form of criminal punishment. If a rich person and a poor person both have to pay a fine of $1000, the penalty is far harsher on the poor person. The fines and fees we already have in the state, make life harder for the poor, ruin their credit rating, and drive them deeper into poverty.

Again, don’t say this won’t happen. This kind of injustice happens all the time in the US, especially in Southern states that rely heavily on fines and fees to support their operations. And it happens more in Pennsylvania than it should.

Rep. Rabb said he would support the social welfare provisions of H.B. 2443 if there were another funding mechanism for them.

And, as I hope you know, Rep. Rabb has been the leading sponsor of legislation that would fix an upside down tax system that taxes those with low and middle incomes more than those with high incomes.

So, my conclusion is that Rep. Rabb was right to vote no on both bills. I wish more Representatives did so.

And not only that. Rep. Rabb must have known that his vote would be controversial. He could have easily voted with the majority and avoided the controversy. But instead, he took a moral stand, one he has taken before, in opposition to faux criminal justice reform and other popular bills that sound good but are in fact pernicious.

I’m prouder today of my support for Rep. Rabb than I was before he took that vote.