PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

RAISE Act of 2017

Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2017

Reforming Alternatives to Incarceration and Sentencing to Establish a Better Path for Youth Act of 2017 or the RAISE Act of 2017

This bill amends the federal criminal code to permit a court to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum for certain nonviolent youth offenses if the mandatory minimum is unjust to the youth and not necessary to protect public safety.

The term "youth" means an individual prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offense committed at age 21 or younger.

Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.

Read full official summaryShow less

The bill requires the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to release early, subject to a period of pre-release custody, a nonviolent youth offender who has: (1) completed one half or more of his or her prison term, and (2) received no disciplinary violations for violent conduct in the last two years.

A court may reduce the prison term of a youth who has completed 20 years of such prison term if: (1) compelling evidence warrants a sentence reduction, and (2) the youth poses no public safety danger. Additionally, a court must treat as discretionary a mandatory life prison term for a youth offender and impose an appropriate sentence after considering the youth's age.

It limits to 30, 60, or 90 days the maximum prison term imposed on a defendant who commits a first, second, or third technical violation of a probation condition.

The BOP must separately designate youth correctional facilities, minimize contact between youth and other offenders, and establish youth education, skills training, reentry, and mental and emotional health programs.

The Department of Justice must establish pilot programs for diversion of high-risk, victimized, and primary caretaker youth. The BOP must establish pilot programs on youth mentorship, government service, and animal service.

This bill's provisions apply to youth involved in the federal criminal justice system before, on, or after enactment.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] · D–TX

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.

  2. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

  3. Introduced in House

  4. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.65 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.65 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.65 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.65 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources