Prosecutorial sadism?

[just Warren]

Woman who plea-bargained a marijuana charge uses a gun to save her life from a psycho. Shooting is ruled justified. But now she is charged with felon in possession of a firearm and faces multiple years in prison.

Why would the D.A do something like this?

What possible value to society is there to charging this woman and putting her in jail?

[griz]

Could be a DA that believes guns are bad and is making a statement by going after her.  Could also be that the DA likes easy slam dunk cases to pad his resume.

But to answer your question, I don't see how locking her up benefits society in any way.  But to tell you the truth, I don't see a benefit to society by charging her for marijuana in the first place.  Our justice system is a very blunt instrument.

[MechAg94]

I don't see a real benefit of restricting possession of guns for felons (at least non-violent felonies).  It doesn't stop even the violent ones from getting guns and everyone should have the right to defend themselves.  If they didn't even put her on parole, I don't see how it was an issue (some comments said she was on parole).  Were I on a jury, I wouldn't convict.

As far as your question, I agree with griz.  A DA who either doesn't like guns or sees an easy win.  Maybe some negative press will get their attention. 

[230RN]

I don't see a real benefit of restricting possession of guns for felons (at least non-violent felonies).  It doesn't stop even the violent ones from getting guns and everyone should have the right to defend themselves.  If they didn't even put her on parole, I don't see how it was an issue (some comments said she was on parole).  Were I on a jury, I wouldn't convict.

As far as your question, I agree with griz.  A DA who either doesn't like guns or sees an easy win.  Maybe some negative press will get their attention.  

MechAg94 beat me to it.   I agree in almost every respect.

"If you can't trust them with a gun (or other deadly weapon) don't let them out on the street."

Of course, my personal feeling is, as with Aurora Colorado, we should parachute-drop either those surplus field grade 1911s and plenty of ammo, or loaded Liberty .45s, all over the place, withdraw the police, and let them settle their differences.

Might have almost the same positive result as RoadKingLarry's wish for a plague or asteroid strike.

Ayup.  That's what Terry thinks.

Might be a suitable solution for some other places in America.... nay, the world.

Ayup.

[RoadKingLarry]

MechAg94 beat me to it.   I agree in almost every respect.

"If you can't trust them with a gun (or other deadly weapon) don't let them out on the street."

Of course, my personal feeling is, as with Aurora Colorado, we should parachute-drop either those surplus field grade 1911s and plenty of ammo, or loaded Liberty .45s, all over the place, withdraw the police, and let them settle their differences.

Might have almost the same positive result as RoadKingLarry's wish for a plague or asteroid strike.

Ayup.  That's what Terry thinks.

Might be a suitable solution for some other places in America.... nay, the world.

Ayup.

I've moved up to plague AND asteroid strike. Actually a plague carrying asteroid would be perfect.

[230RN]

Well, your concept is OK with me except the plague and/or asteroid strike would affect too many non-target species.

The air-dropped .45s would be pretty species-specific.  Yes, some innocents would be lost, but I doubt this loss rate would reach the same level as the present innocent loss rate.

Now, we're talking Aurora, Colorado here.  Actual results may vary with venue.

Terry

[Sideways_8]

I've moved up to plague AND asteroid strike. Actually a plague carrying asteroid would be perfect.

Maybe a plague carrying asteroid made out of guns.

[De Selby]

It’s a lot more likely that innocent mama is caught up in drugs and other bad business, and that it is both the cause of so much bad luck with intruders and the police deciding to take the low hanging fruit on a charge.  Wouldn’t be surprising if there were a deal for information coming with the charge.

[dogmush]

It’s a lot more likely that innocent mama is caught up in drugs and other bad business, and that it is both the cause of so much bad luck with intruders and the police deciding to take the low hanging fruit on a charge.  Wouldn’t be surprising if there were a deal for information coming with the charge.

Given the guilty plea on possession with intent  (unless that was a railroad) I think it's likely she's caught up in drugs.  She should still be able to defend herself from a man breaking into her apartment without fear of being brought up on BS charges.

The whole "Felons don't get Guns" thing is a great soundbite on an election campaign, but with the ever expanding list of felonies it's becoming pretty unjust.

[JN01]

MechAg94 beat me to it.   I agree in almost every respect.

"If you can't trust them with a gun (or other deadly weapon) don't let them out on the street."

Common sentiment expressed in these sorts of threads, but not practical.  Even if you give out no paroles, you cannot hold people past the expiration of their sentence.  You could have a life sentence with the possibility of parole for all felonies, but there still would be no magical way to be sure that a criminal was "trustworthy" at any particular point.

The fact is, violent predators will be released from prison and will continue their evil ways.  Gun prohibitions will not stop them from getting one, but their is some utility in having them on the books.  If a career criminal is caught carrying one, he can be removed from society (at least for a little while) and save some people from being victimized.

Now, I don't feel the prohibition should apply to all felonies nor to misdemeanors.  I think it should be limited to certain violent crimes, nor should it necessarily be a lifetime prohibition.  If someone stays clean for a certain period of time (maybe 10 years or so) they should be able to have their gun rights restored.

[MillCreek]

^^^There is a process in Washington state to petition the county Superior Court for restoration of gun rights.  Some felony (Class A and sexual offenses) and domestic violence convictions result in a lifetime ban on firearms possession or a concealed carry permit.  Generally speaking, you must have a 3-5 year period with no criminal offenses before you can petition the court. 

I have heard some lectures on this from local counsel, and apparently some of them can make a nice living representing clients on this.

[TommyGunn]

^^^There is a process in Washington state to petition the county Superior Court for restoration of gun rights.  Some felony (Class A and sexual offenses) and domestic violence convictions result in a lifetime ban on firearms possession or a concealed carry permit.  Generally speaking, you must have a 3-5 year period with no criminal offenses before you can petition the court. 

I have heard some lectures on this from local counsel, and apparently some of them can make a nice living representing clients on this.

The govt.  refuses to fund this petition process,  so in effect it does not really exist.

[230RN]

I remarked,

"If you can't trust them with a gun (or other deadly weapon) don't let them out on the street."

JN01 said in part,

Common sentiment expressed in these sorts of threads, but not practical.

Of course, we all know that, but it's a satisfying way to express some of the frustration with a lot of revolving door justice that we see for repeat offenders.  You will note I put it in quotes.

Terry

[Hawkmoon]

The whole "Felons don't get Guns" thing is a great soundbite on an election campaign, but with the ever expanding list of felonies it's becoming pretty unjust.

It was always unjust. White collar crimes are completely non-violent. It serves no purpose to deprive a female -- who maybe stole from her church when she was their bookkeeper -- from having a gun after she has served her sentence, when her crime wasn't a violent crime. Meanwhile, the punks who really REALLY shouldn't have guns can find them easily. The law needs to be revised so that the focus is on keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns.

[Hawkmoon]

^^^There is a process in Washington state to petition the county Superior Court for restoration of gun rights.  Some felony (Class A and sexual offenses) and domestic violence convictions result in a lifetime ban on firearms possession or a concealed carry permit.  Generally speaking, you must have a 3-5 year period with no criminal offenses before you can petition the court.

I have heard some lectures on this from local counsel, and apparently some of them can make a nice living representing clients on this.

The govt.  refuses to fund this petition process,  so in effect it does not really exist.

Apples and oranges. It's the federal government that hasn't funded the federal restoration of firearms rights process. If I understood it correctly, Millcreek was addressing the state process, which would apply to convictions under state law.

[230RN]

Hawkmoon said,

It was always unjust. White collar crimes are completely non-violent. It serves no purpose to deprive a female -- who maybe stole from her church when she was their bookkeeper -- from having a gun after she has served her sentence, when her crime wasn't a violent crime.

Or from possessing a pen or pencil.

Well, somebody had to say it.  I was out taking a leak when they chose the "someone."

Terry

[zxcvbob]

Felons being able the legally buy/possess guns wasn't a problem before 1968 -- so IMHO it's a manufactured problem now.

[Hawkmoon]

Felons being able the legally buy/possess guns wasn't a problem before 1968 -- so IMHO it's a manufactured problem now.

Correct.

I went through high school and college before 1968, so what I was taught about the penal system was that the purpose was to rehabilitate criminals. Once they "paid their debt to society" they were supposed to be suitable for reintegration into said society. Today, of course, prison doesn't make any pretense of rehabilitating anyone. Many states have outsources their prisons to for-profit jailers whose only concern is maximizing profit. Prisons have become training academies for thieves, and recruiting stations for gangs. I have difficulty perceiving the new model as an improvement.

[Pb]

Correct.

I went through high school and college before 1968, so what I was taught about the penal system was that the purpose was to rehabilitate criminals. Once they "paid their debt to society" they were supposed to be suitable for reintegration into said society. Today, of course, prison doesn't make any pretense of rehabilitating anyone. Many states have outsources their prisons to for-profit jailers whose only concern is maximizing profit. Prisons have become training academies for thieves, and recruiting stations for gangs. I have difficulty perceiving the new model as an improvement.

Was prison better back then?  Did it rehab criminals?  I wasn't around then, but I would like to know.

[JN01]

Correct.

I went through high school and college before 1968, so what I was taught about the penal system was that the purpose was to rehabilitate criminals. Once they "paid their debt to society" they were supposed to be suitable for reintegration into said society. Today, of course, prison doesn't make any pretense of rehabilitating anyone. Many states have outsources their prisons to for-profit jailers whose only concern is maximizing profit. Prisons have become training academies for thieves, and recruiting stations for gangs. I have difficulty perceiving the new model as an improvement.

Prison cannot rehabilitate anyone.  In some cases, they can offer programs to help an inmate rehabilitate himself, if he is indeed committed to change.  The State of Ohio has numerous programs aimed at rehabilitation. Most are a waste of resources as inmates use them merely as a way to check off a box at a parole hearing, pass the time, or give them access to other (hopefully gullible) people who they can try to manipulate into doing something for them.  Some people do not need a program to keep them from coming back to prison- some make reckless mistakes they will not repeat, others recognize it as a dead end and become productive citizens.

Prisons have always been places where criminals train and recruit one another to some extent.  I don't know how the recidivism rate from 50 years ago compares to today, like most stats, they can be easily manipulated.  I would observe that a couple things have changed over the years.  

First, like much of the rest of society, generally criminal's attitudes have changed.  The entitlement attitude is very prevalent-  they don't think they did anything wrong to get locked up, they certainly don't believe they have a debt to repay to society.  

Secondly, in the past, prison was not really a place that most people wanted to return to, so there was some deterrent effect.  Today, prison is extremely soft.  The philosophy seems to be that keeping the inmates happy and entertained will allow a prison to run smoothly.  Along the same line, disciplinary tools to hold inmates accountable for bad behavior have been greatly impeded.   For example, segregation units are limited to a few privileges that can be denied an inmate, even then, housing them there for more than 6 days is considered "torture".  Inmates have no incentive to behave.  They have no consequences if they do not behave.  As a result, the inmates are much more inclined to do as they please, which equates to more violence, gang activity, etc.   The appeasement policy has led to prison administration having less control of facilities, not more.  They may prefer to not be in prison, but if the experience is no big deal, they have again disincentivized changing one's criminal behavior.

I have 29 years in corrections and have seen many changes- few of them for the good.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Side note:

It makes me angry that guns in house = Possession of firearms. $10 they weren't her guns in the first place. They belonged to her husband. His "failure" to properly store his firearms where she couldn't access them shouldn't be on her.

And it shouldn't be on him, either. They're his damn guns, he can keep them how he wants.

 

Continue with your regularly scheduled program...

[De Selby]

Side note:

It makes me angry that guns in house = Possession of firearms. $10 they weren't her guns in the first place. They belonged to her husband. His "failure" to properly store his firearms where she couldn't access them shouldn't be on her.

And it shouldn't be on him, either. They're his damn guns, he can keep them how he wants.

 

Continue with your regularly scheduled program...

Maybe she is not telling the truth, and being involved in dodgy drug deals which can be hard to prosecute has tempted the police to choose an easily proved alternative in hopes she will give information or be punished for other crimes that they don’t have enough to prove.

Literally everything about the SD shooting, the conviction, and the guns puts up red flags

[De Selby]

Prison cannot rehabilitate anyone.  In some cases, they can offer programs to help an inmate rehabilitate himself, if he is indeed committed to change.  The State of Ohio has numerous programs aimed at rehabilitation. Most are a waste of resources as inmates use them merely as a way to check off a box at a parole hearing, pass the time, or give them access to other (hopefully gullible) people who they can try to manipulate into doing something for them.  Some people do not need a program to keep them from coming back to prison- some make reckless mistakes they will not repeat, others recognize it as a dead end and become productive citizens.

Prisons have always been places where criminals train and recruit one another to some extent.  I don't know how the recidivism rate from 50 years ago compares to today, like most stats, they can be easily manipulated.  I would observe that a couple things have changed over the years.  

First, like much of the rest of society, generally criminal's attitudes have changed.  The entitlement attitude is very prevalent-  they don't think they did anything wrong to get locked up, they certainly don't believe they have a debt to repay to society.  

Secondly, in the past, prison was not really a place that most people wanted to return to, so there was some deterrent effect.  Today, prison is extremely soft.  The philosophy seems to be that keeping the inmates happy and entertained will allow a prison to run smoothly.  Along the same line, disciplinary tools to hold inmates accountable for bad behavior have been greatly impeded.   For example, segregation units are limited to a few privileges that can be denied an inmate, even then, housing them there for more than 6 days is considered "torture".  Inmates have no incentive to behave.  They have no consequences if they do not behave.  As a result, the inmates are much more inclined to do as they please, which equates to more violence, gang activity, etc.   The appeasement policy has led to prison administration having less control of facilities, not more.  They may prefer to not be in prison, but if the experience is no big deal, they have again disincentivized changing one's criminal behavior.

I have 29 years in corrections and have seen many changes- few of them for the good.

Incarceration rates have exploded since the 1980’s, yet crime has gone down overall.

If tougher prisons in the past deterred crime, was was there so much more crime (particularly violent crime) in the past?

[JN01]

 
Historically, crime rates go up and down for a variety of reasons, but an argument could be made that the reduction in crime over the past 25 years or so is because of (at least partially) the higher incarceration rate.  There is no way to quantify the deterrent effect of longer sentences or tougher prisons.  Certainly, some people are reluctant to commit even relatively minor offenses for fear of the consequences.  Hard core sociopaths are unlikely to be deterred no matter what the penalty.

[Hawkmoon]

Incarceration rate statistics aren't very useful without also looking at recidivism rates. That's what tells whether or not felons are being [successfully] rehabilitated.