Posted on 11/06/2006 9:57:43 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Several weeks ago a memorably strange ruling came down from our Circuit Court bench. In a death penalty case involving the fatal stabbing of one prison inmate by another, Judge Pamela North instructed the jury that a person may arm himself "in reasonable anticipation of an attack."
After hearing that, the jury acquitted Robert McFarlin of first-degree murder in the 2004 death of Damon Bowie, who was stabbed five times on the sidelines of a basketball game at the Maryland House of Correction in Jessup.
McFarlin claimed he armed himself with a knife because he believed there was a "hit" out on him. The jury convicted him of the lesser crime of second-degree murder, which doesn't carry the death penalty.
We try to tread lightly in criticizing judges, who are vastly more knowledgeable about the law than we can ever be. But this is flat-out illogical. So now, no matter what prison rules say, it can be OK for jailed felons to carry weapons?
It's one thing for a law-abiding citizen to get a gun permit and carry a weapon to protect himself. But here we're talking about felons: criminals who have demonstrated no regard for any life other than their own, and who are bound by strict prison rules governing every waking moment. If feeling threatened is a sufficient reason for them to carry a weapon, we suspect most inmates, given the atmosphere in prisons, could build a case for self-defense.
Judge North, in effect, passed a permission slip to every inmate to commit murder without fear of the death penalty. And without the death penalty, what do hardened inmates - especially those in prison for long terms - have to fear?
Correctional officers don't even carry weapons, for fear of them getting into the wrong hands. In July an officer was stabbed to death at the House of Correction. Two inmates are being charged in his death. We doubt the other officers trying to keep order in state prisons found much comfort in Judge North's reasoning. The last thing they need is anything implying that inmates are justified in toting around contraband weapons.
Inmates have the right to have threats to their safety taken seriously by correctional officials. But if the law actually allows inmates to carry weapons in self-defense, we need a new law.
McFarlin didn't get away with murder - but he beat the death penalty, perhaps the only penalty offering a serious deterrent to someone who was already serving 100 years for crimes committed in Prince George's County.
Perhaps, even without Judge North's instructions, the jury would have decided that this murder was not premeditated and that the death penalty shouldn't apply. But what we object to is not the specific decision by the jury in this one case, but the precedent being set by the judge.
We hope the legislature takes up this matter before this peculiar legal logic is used again.
Is there anything in the Second Amendment that says a convicted felon is not entitled to all of his Constitutional rights? There are non-violent felons who fall under such control.
Very interesting case and I guess very fact intensive.
This guy could be guilty as hell. But I have to say if I had a son that had a drug problem and was in Prison for Possession of Cocaine I hope the jury would be able to consider him defending himself from rape or murder as a mitigating factorso so he wouldnt get the death sentence.
"Judge Pamela North instructed the jury that a person may arm himself "in reasonable anticipation of an attack."
If I was the judge I would have used just ole fashioned common law Self Defense doctrine instead of this
IIRC, the Supremes have ruled that felons cannot be required to register their firearms because it violates their 5th amendment right against bearing witness against themselves. Now, an imprisoned felon retains a right to arm himself. Apparently those with the most rights are convicts, released felons and illegal aliens.
Juck the Fudges.
But the state sees nothing wrong with prohibiting a convicted felon from RKBA outside of prison; so how can the right be unrestricted inside prison? Makes no sense...
TC
Under the 5th amendment, you may be deprived of life or liberty as long as due process is followed. The process has been followed for inmates and part of their punishment is deprivation of some civil liberties.
Please keep in mind that this is inside the prison - where one would reasonably expect the convicts are enjoined from possessing weapons.
See the Fifth Amendment - "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
People in prison have received their due process of law.
Because the permanent loss of certain rights is part of the "debt" that accrues to certain crimes. The debt is not paid in full by the prison term.
But this case does not involve that question. This guy was still incarcerated.
It is. There are classes of crime, determined by State statutes, where conviction automatically carries certain consequences. These vary from State to State, but are typically connected to violent felonies. One of these is the RKBA. Another is often the franchise. Yet another is limiting where you can reside and whom you must report to. Get convicted, and they automatically become part of the sentence, regardless of how much time you serve.
In this case, the prisoner was sentenced and serving his time, but, does he not have the Right of self defense while he is serving his time, or does he just get prayed upon by anyone who wants to kill him?
He has the right to defend himself. He does not have the right to carry a weapon. Does that make defending himself more difficult? Yeah. So I guess he should have availed himself of some other options, like not committing felonies or pissing of a raftload of killers. Did he tell the guards that he knew a hit was out on him? Did he ask for more protection? Or did he just shiv a rival and find some BS story to cover himself?
How about twenty years down the road, and the Feds decide that you may no longer own a firearm because of a conviction 20 years earlier? Hell, why not today round everyone up who has ever been convicted of a crime in the past and throw them all back in jail, after all, they gave up [certain] Rights after they were convicted.
Then you sue under the Constitutional provisions in Article I, Sec. 9 banning ex post facto laws. These penalties aren't being heaped on after the fact. They are part of the conviction up front.
How much more of this idiocy can this country take and still stand?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.