Replies

Rand Paul should put together a movement of libertarians, populists, and assorted anyone who makes a big distinction between violent and non-violent criminals... meaning those who are truly non-violent and didn’t plea-bargain away a weapon, which often happens.

Criminals using weapons need to be isolated away from those who do not use weapons. And all weapons need to be classified together.

meaning those who are truly non-violent and didn’t plea-bargain away a weapon, which often happens.

What if they plea bargained because they didn’t HAVE a weapon? Maybe eliminate plea bargains completely and force everything to trial. But taking away a constitutional right for a charge that wasn’t proven to a jury is pretty shaky to me.

Let’s say you (not really you, but some poor schmuck) pick up a drunk friend’s car. You get pulled over and they find a bag of weed and an unlicensed gun. You get charged with both. The prosecution feels like they are on shaky ground for trial so they accept a plea to misdemeanor possession and drop the gun charge.

That person becomes a “violent offender”? The prosecution HAD their chance to take it to trial. They didn’t. Prosecutors shouldn’t get a “win” by default if a charge doesn’t make it to trial.

Maybe it goes to trial and you lose. Now the judge can’t say you were a dumbass who should’ve known better and give you a lighter, but commensurate sentence. Because congress passed a mandatory minimum of 15 years to be served in full before your possession charge starts.