And while I’m on the subject of writing my own laws, I thought I’d toss out an idea I had a few years ago that might cut down on violent crime.
I think we ought to have a sliding-scale law that covers the use of guns in crime. The basic idea is that using a gun in a crime will cost you more time behind bars, and the more aggressively you use it, the more it will cost you. This law will only be in addition to other charges, of course — it requires some additional charge to work.
The numbers I was working with were as follows:
Possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony: +1 year
Display of a firearm: +2 years
Aiming a firearm at a person: +3 years
Discharging a firearm: +3 years
Firing at a person: +5 years
Wounding a person: +10 years (per person)
Killing a person: Life or death (depending on the state)
Now, I think these should be state laws, not federal laws — the federal government has enough to worry about, and this is exactly the kind of matter that should be left up to the states. But I think this law (if it’s actually enforced, unlike Massachusetts’ Bartley-Fox law, which is almost never prosecuted) would give criminals an incentive to “tone it down” a bit and, maybe, even save a few lives.
J.
Makes sense to me. I agree with the state level thing too. The Feds should be making very few criminal laws. Which brings up another point – mandatory sentencing.
Mandotry sentences were instituted when judges started going against the wishes of law-abiding citiezens. I think it was a bad solution to a bad problem. I feel that there needs to be some way of allowing judges to cut back on the time in extreme circumstances, but not have the authority to be willy-nilly about it.
I’d rather we stop demonizing inanimate hunks of metal.
Is it really worse to wound someone with a bullet vs a knife, or a baseball bat? Is threatening someone by aiming a gun at them worse than threatening to to bludgeon them with a tire iron?
How about we just criminalize threatening, attacking, battering, assaulting, wounding, and killing someone (other than in defense of self or other).
Increase the penalties for the above? Sure. Release non-violent criminals to make room for violent one (a reversal of the current policy…)? Definately.
Demonize one type of tool over others? Silly.
I’d rather we stop demonizing inanimate hunks of metal.
Is it really worse to wound someone with a bullet vs a knife, or a baseball bat? Is threatening someone by aiming a gun at them worse than threatening to to bludgeon them with a tire iron?
How about we just criminalize threatening, attacking, battering, assaulting, wounding, and killing someone (other than in defense of self or other).
Increase the penalties for the above? Sure. Release non-violent criminals to make room for violent one (a reversal of the current policy…)? Definately.
Demonize one type of tool over others? Silly.
I was under the impression many states already had such laws. If I’m not mistaken, using a gun to threaten another person, when you’re not in fear of harm, will get one in a world of legal trouble (criminal and civil). I sometimes carry a gun (legally), but have thus far never had the need to show it. If I expose it, it will be to use it ASAP for self defense.
If I’m not mistaken, use of a gun in a robbery is an automatic felony offense with mandatory min. sentence in most states. If one is just driving the getaway car in a robbery in which someone is shot, he’s in about as much trouble as the shooter. And, a dealer who knowingly sells a gun to a felon who later uses it illegally just may get sued out of store and home, as one recently did (a $800K settlement against the dealer, as I recall).
Agree that these should be state laws. The Federal Gov. should deal with the use of guns in interstate crimes, like serial robbers/killers who work a number of states.
Agree with Scott that the problem is the action of a person, not the weapon he chooses. The harm is the physical damage to another, whether it is done via a gun, a kitchen knife, a hammer, or antifreeze (as a woman in GA used to kill TWO men).
If we outlawed every “weapon” by which one can be hurt, we’d have to outlaw hands. Like Archie on “All in the Family” said when his daughter was wishing for more gun laws: “People get pushed out of windows, little girl. Should we outlaw windows?”
If a person abuses his 2nd Amendment right to misuse a firearm, I’m all for throwing the book at him. Release those in jail for personal drug use to make room for them.
In Florida, we have such a law: “10-20-life.”
If you use a gun during a crime, it’s 10 years.
If you fire a gun during a crime, it’s 20 years.
If you shoot someone, whether they live or die, it’s life.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/10-20-life/
Scott has the point I
Richard – it sounds like the History and Moral Philosophy class in Heinlein’s Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie that claims to be based on the book).
The scene is reproduced here: History and Moral Philosophy
Agree, most states already have such laws, which either enhance the offense and/or the penalty based on the use of a gun in a crime.
Also note, in a conspiracy, if one person uses a gun, all members of the conspiracy are subject to the enhanced penalties; therefore, a getaway driver in an armed robbery is subject to enhanced penalties, even if he never wielded a weapon. The getaway driver can also be put away for murder, if his co-conspirator kills someone. Choose your friends carefully.
Also. agree the mere presentation of a gun is a crime, if the other people present reasonably believe the gun may be used against them; this is true, even if the gun is unloaded. It’s called “assault” in the common law, and applies to any weapon, not just guns. A raised fist can lead to a charge of assault. An actual physical strike is “battery.” The details on such things vary by state.
How about laws encouraging law-abiding citizens to be trained and carry defensive firearms. The criminal elements would be less likely to attempt such acts if they knew there was a good chance that someone in the area of the crime would be able to react and stop the criminal. This could also have the effect of reducing court backlogs and prison expenditures since the criminal would be less likely to survive to require those institutions of the justice system.
State not Federal laws. Hmmm, let me think. I know, let’s tie the Federal Highway trust funds to compliance. That way, we get a Federal implementation at the state level. [this is a joke]. Google the “Price of Free Corn” and read on.
– This sort of approach is already in place in several states and there is a federal statute, the Brady law, which was enacted after the crippling of the senator who was with Reagan and badly injured by stray bullets intended for the President….
– The problem with all such de-incentifying legislation of this sort is it seeks to appeal to a persons mentality and sense of self preservation, neither of which one tends to find in people who will:
– a) Commit crimes of any nature in the first place…
– b) See a) above…..
– You can’t effectively deture someone totally devoid of morals or scare someone who is fearlessly stupid…
This has already been done in several states. The NRA tried to get these laws inacted years ago and succeeded in some states and were laughed out of others by the liberals. The states that do have them don’t enforce them. They need to be mandantory ( a condition that the NRA tried to get passed also).
But, but…. WHERE are pages 2 thru 2,117?!
Obviously, such a short plan could never work.
Besides, do you want to put a third of the population out of work?
Such a set of laws exist in … READY? California.
Have a gun = 5 years
Show a gun = 10 years
Use a gun = 25 years
all tacked on to whatever sentence you are convicted of. ( I might be a bit off on the numbers)
But I am real close.
Personally, I believe that if a gun is proven to have been unloaded during the commission of a crime then the risk element associated with having a gun is not the same as a loaded gun, i.e. no chance of accidental or purposeful shooting.
If a person uses an unloaded gun during a crime as a threat, that should not result in any penalty beyond the nature of the crime itself.
The criminal code is so lengthy, detailed and convoluted today, that it can be used unfairly by prosecutiors when they elect to. Why should one crime, e.g. robbery of a convenience store, actually result in 6-10 violations of the criminal code? (e.g. having a gun, fleeing the crime scene, evading police, possession of stolen goods, etc.) I’m not sure if you can actyually commit a crime and violate only one specific statuate.
I am a strong proponent of a complete review of the criminal code with the goal of major simplification with the target being that an average person can actually read the document and clearly understand what constitutes a crime and what penalty is typically associated with the commission of that crime.
Interesting example. Did you know that burning tree branches in a metal garbage can is OK in your own yard but considered felony arson (in Calif) if you’re a couple of feet off your property line, like in a utility right-of-way? Would they prosecute? Unlikely, but it’s still an option from the Criminal code perspective.
If a person uses an unloaded gun during a crime as a threat, that should not result in any penalty beyond the nature of the crime itself.
Wrong. “Threat” has two elements — one is actual, but another is perceived. If by displaying an unloaded gun a criminal succeeds in securing cooperation from someone who might have resisted had the gun not been displayed (or the victim known it was unloaded) the result is EXACTLY the same as if the gun were loaded.
Ergo, the penalty should not depend on whether the gun was loaded, a matter of actual threat, but on whether the victim perceived a threat and acted accordingly. This is also known as a “reasonable person” test, and Cz’s view fails it.
Wonder why?
RE: Hunter’s conclusion, “You can’t effectively deture[sic] someone totally devoid of morals or scare someone who is fearlessly stupid…”
This line of reasoning only supports the notion that we need to lock “them” up and throw away the key. It is also a sound basis for creating a program that identifies people without morals and locking them away before they have the chance to kill someone. After all, if it saves the life of one child…
Guns and cartridges are merely inanimate objects, which should not be demonized or banned. The cuplrits are the fingers that pull the triggers. It makes more sense to ban fingers than to ban guns.
Whatever fingers one uses to commit a crime should be confiscated.
Ergo, the penalty should not depend on whether the gun was loaded, a matter of actual threat, but on whether the victim perceived a threat and acted accordingly.
But based on this argument, what difference does it then make whether one brandishes a gun or a machete?
Wouldn’t any item that was considered a weapon, e.g. ball bat, knife, mace, etc., be “perceived” as potentially being used to seriously injure and therefore cause one to act accordingly vs resisting?
If so, then why change penalties for using a gun?
I know this is not on the same track but yesterday while listening to the commentators during the Nascar race (I go back and forth on commercials from golf to nascar on Sats and Suns – the only worthwhile days of the week) one of them was talking about a race so and so was watching and the power went out so he didn’t get to see the race and he shot the tv. I had to laugh because at the same time he said that, I said “figures, southerners!” Sorry, I just had to interject something funny here.
~C
Why should someone receive less time in jail for shooting someone if they miss? Why is attempted murder treated any less than actual murder? We jail people because they are a threat to others in society. Are we supposed to cut them a break simply because the victim survived the shot in the stomach?
Playing with guns…. hmm playing with gunfire – that reminds me, when is the vice presidential debate and are you going to write about it? Oh, please do!!
~C
PS Kerry and Bush are dead heat – do not understand that at all but please don’t shoot the messenger, Jay, do shoot the damn message.
~C
possession of an unregistered hand gun in the State of MA is a manditory 1 year sentance. However my understanding is that a Pol’s Son was one of the first caught so they just dropped his charge to a lesser weapon violation so he did not have to go to jail. It is in not enforcing the laws we have that is the problem, not the need to make additional laws.