Posted on 01/14/2003 8:49:54 AM PST by TroutStalker
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:47:53 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
What, exactly, are you referring to? My stated opinion, or some imagined physical event?
The courts are supposed to mete out punishments. Mandatory sentencing laws are wrong-headed and just as bad as courts legislating from the bench.
Statutes specify punishments for breaking laws. That's what laws do. Are you suggesting that laws should not specify punishments for crimes, that all punishments should be determined by judical fiat?
If you want to prove me wrong on this, cite some criminal laws that don't specify punishments for breaking them. Good luck.
If judges are not performing properly, use the existing constitutional means to remove them, don't just write more laws.
That seems reasonable enough to me.
This jparticular case shows the weakness of the three strikes laws as well as the fallacies of gun laws.
How does this case show the weakness of "three strike" laws? I'm somehow missing the point of this absurd non sequitur.
And lest we drift off topic, I will repeat that my objection to Don W's post is based on my rejection of the idea that harsh punishment inspires crime. This felon was already a criminal, and was in the process of continuing to be one. Speculating that mandatory sentencing somehow is responsible for this situation is patently ridiculous.
If you want to argue that mandatory sentencing begets crime, then let's talk. But let's not wander around obsessing on my knees, okay?
That was not a rebuttal. Eagle Eye did NOT address my point at all.
And my point is this: I refuse to accept the idea that mandatory sentencing causes crime. Am I wrong to believe that mandatory sentences do not cause crime?
If so, explain how I'm wrong. Despite my amazement at what you are implying, I am willing try to follow your logic, if you're willing to present it.
This:Your thinly veiled contention that laws are the problem, rather than violent habitual criminals, is both shocking and morally bankrupt.
Your unjustified harsh, nasty, mean remarks show little, if any thought, merely an emotional outburst and a personal attack.
Laws no more cause crime than forks cause obesity, however, laws can re-define actions to make a once legal action illegal.
Specifically regarding Three Strike, Project Exile, or other mandatory sentencing laws, I find them completely wrong-headed, a bandaid on arterial bleeding.
(Military experts, police, lawyers, bankers, and hunters know that if an adversary feels cornered with no apparent escape, even the normally docile types will fight fiercly. Alway offer an apparent safe alternative instead of the inevitable worst possible outcome. Always. Or be prepared for a fight to the death.)
Legislative fixes to Judicial shortcomings are destined to fail just as legislative actions from the Bench promote more unintended consequences than good.
First of all, I think that we agree that we should never need Three Strike laws, that repeat felons should not be on the streets. In order for a person to be CONVICTED of even two felonies, they will probably have participated in dozens and probably have been arested for several prior acts that either resulted in lesser pleas or straight releases.
Laws do set penalty ranges, but mandatory sentencing at first appears to be 'checks and balances' in operation, but in reality steals judgment and discretion from judges that need it. Those that take the "we must do something" approach (which usually means passing more meaningless laws) always seem to applaud more and more laws instead of enforcing the ones on the books.
In this particular case, the criminal was already committing a felony by carrying a firearm. He was probably already invovled in others. He did not know that the cops simply wanted to talk. Would he have immediately opened fire if he didn't feel threatened and cornered? Probably not.
No, the laws did not "cause" he criminal activity, however they do escalate the amount of resistance the police are likely to encounter upon contact. And quite often, as in this case, the cops may not realize that they are encountering a two-time loser that will go ballistic without warning because they fear going back to prison more than they fear losing their lives.
Your attitudes remind me of the well meaning idiots in Florida who voted a Constitutional amendment to protect pregnant pigs. The farmers then slaughtered hundreds of pregnant pigs rather than comply with the new laws.
Where is the personal attack? My comments apply to the contention that laws are the problem, rather than violent habitual criminals, which I do, indeed, find both shocking and morally bankrupt. I see nothing wrong with saying so, whether or not you do.
Where is the emotional outburst? You have posted nothing to support your calumny. My opinions are based upon a great deal of thought. Expressing them does not constitute an emotional outburst.
I'm sorry if my strong convictions on this extremely important topic somehow offend you or Don W. Please be kind enough to read my words for what they are: an objection to a point of view I find offensive and counterproductive, not a personal attack. Do a search on me and read my posts, and you'll find that I do not tend to run around insulting people -- although there are some topics about which I don't mince words, and this is one of them. I do endeavor to respect people and their right to their opinions, but that doesn't mean I must agree with them.
If that bothers you, as it apparently does, then again, I'm sorry that you misunderstand me. I can use flowery, lengthy and disingenuous posts to try to express the same sentiments, but I prefer to work with the assumption that the Free Republic is a forum for grown-ups. As it is, I find myself uncomfortable with feeling the need to belt out four paragraphs defending my right to express my opinion, but here it is.
I ask that we stick to the topic, and avoid distractions. If you see me attacking yourself or Don W personally, then by all means call me on it. But please don't get snippy when I attack your opinions. They're fair game, just as mine are. That's why we're here, right?
Laws no more cause crime than forks cause obesity, however, laws can re-define actions to make a once legal action illegal.
To the extent you hold the opinion that laws don't cause crime, I agree with you. And that's the crux of my strong disagreement with Don W's reaction to this article:
"Would this guy have drawn and fired at the cops had the fear of hard time not been there?"
This sort of speculation, followed by the conclusion that "mandatory sentencing is counter-productive, unless you like firefights in the streets", obviously bothers me a great deal.
Why? Because it amounts to blaming laws for violent crime. I don't buy that for a second, and consider such assertions tremendously hurtful to the cause of fighting crime.
When people deliberately choose to do harm to others, it is NOT the fault of the law.
First of all, I think that we agree that we should never need Three Strike laws, that repeat felons should not be on the streets. In order for a person to be CONVICTED of even two felonies, they will probably have participated in dozens and probably have been arested for several prior acts that either resulted in lesser pleas or straight releases.
I'm with you that "three strikes" laws are, at best, a reaction to a combination of poorly written laws and, consequently, poor results in court. Blaming judges for bad legislation, however, is like blaming the IRS for the tax code. The responsibility for problems with law lies squarely with lawmakers.
Look at states where "three strikes" laws are so popular, and you'll find criminal codes, such as in California, that routinely specify sentences that are unreasonably light for many violent crimes. California courts operate under California law. So do California parole boards. That is how California ends up with so many violent repeat felons running around free.
By contrast, committing these same violent felonies in neighboring Nevada leads to a very different outcome: long stretches in a state prison out in the middle of the desert with no parole. And criminals know this. Of course, there is still plenty of violent crime in Nevada, but much less of it committed by repeat offenders -- and a lot of it is "imported" from out of state (at any given time, Nevada has a huge number of non-Nevadans within its borders, many drawn here by the idea of "easy money". Crime follows).
The difference between Nevada and California lies not so much in the courts, but on the laws under which they operate. If rulings are "bad" (say, convicted first-degree murderers receiving 2-year sentences) simply because judges and juries exercise discretionary authority under existing laws, then the laws can be changed to correct these problems.
But the bottom line on "three strikes" laws is that, regardless of the motivations behind them, they are still laws, and exist for a reason. We both seem to think that they are a bad way to deal with fundamental problems with the criminal code, but our opinions are merely our opinions. If a state wants to specify an additional penalty for repeat offenses, I see nothing morally, legally or practically wrong with that.
Laws do set penalty ranges, but mandatory sentencing at first appears to be 'checks and balances' in operation, but in reality steals judgment and discretion from judges that need it. Those that take the "we must do something" approach (which usually means passing more meaningless laws) always seem to applaud more and more laws instead of enforcing the ones on the books.
Criminal laws define criminal conduct, and specify penalties for it. Do you know of so much as a single criminal law that does not specify a punishment for breaking it? If you do, I would be very interested in it.
This is were your argument begins to unravel, because it appears to be based on the notion that criminal laws should not specify penalties for breaking them. Am I wrong in observing this? If so, please explain how.
As an illustration of my point, I present a fairly typical example:
Nevada Revised Statues 200.380 2. A person who commits robbery is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years.
The statute is not at all ambiguous. If you are found guilty of robbery in Nevada, you WILL serve a term of not less than 2 years. That's a mandatory sentence. Commit robbery in Nevada, regardless of circumstances, and you face two years in the state prison. Not county jail, and not probation.
Meanwhile, the best you can hope for if you are found guilty of first-degree murder is twenty long years of hard time before you even become eligible for parole. But you are far more likely to face death or life without parole. (NRS 200.030)
In both cases, the law specifies minimum, mandatory sentences for committing certain crimes. There is nothing wrong with that.
In this particular case, the criminal was already committing a felony by carrying a firearm. He was probably already invovled in others. He did not know that the cops simply wanted to talk. Would he have immediately opened fire if he didn't feel threatened and cornered? Probably not.
This perspective simply amazes me. You appear to be arguing that this felon, who clearly knew full well that he faced a life sentence for what he was doing, was therefore driven to commit a crime he wouldn't have otherwise committed.
Well guess what? Bank robbers wouldn't shoot at police or civilians -- or even need weapons at all -- if bank robbery weren't illegal. So, by this incredibly specious logic, bank robbery -- or any crime that may "lead" criminals to "commit violent acts" because they face harsh penalties -- should be legal. Breathtaking!
No, the laws did not "cause" he criminal activity, however they do escalate the amount of resistance the police are likely to encounter upon contact. And quite often, as in this case, the cops may not realize that they are encountering a two-time loser that will go ballistic without warning because they fear going back to prison more than they fear losing their lives.
Again, I marvel at the implications of this statement. This is what you think the problem is? That the law specifies harsh punishments for serious crimes? Do you honestly believe this?
Please, help me to find sound reasoning in this argument, because I am unable to. I can see how you might get this mistaken idea, but I can't see how you could promote it if you had actually thought it through. I don't mean for this to sound insulting; I find this genuinely baffling.
Are we to not have harsh punishments for criminal behavior? Are harsh punishments the problem? I invite you to make your case, but please understand that I'll have a very hard time accepting this premise.
Your attitudes remind me of the well meaning idiots in Florida who voted a Constitutional amendment to protect pregnant pigs. The farmers then slaughtered hundreds of pregnant pigs rather than comply with the new laws.
Your association of my "attitudes" with those of "the well meaning idiots in Florida" would carry a lot more weight if you had established some sort of meaningful basis for it. It's a broken analogy at best, and doesn't serve its apparent purpose of somehow seeking to obliquely discredit me.
As for the topic, we seem to agree in principle that laws don't cause crime. However, we seem to disagree regarding punishment causing crime, as you seem to maintain.
Please, clarify this for me, and let's leave the name-calling for those of lesser stature.
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.