Speaking of "propaganda"...
DNF's bald-faced assertion:
Link:http://trac.syr.edu/tracatf/newfindings/current/
Comment: One wonders, if the cases for mere felon is possession (fip), as opposed to arguably "real" crimes were removed, what the american taxpaying public is actually getting for their money? Could they be more helpful, for example, by fighting terrorism? Nah, that's not really a priority...
See graph:http://trac.syr.edu/tracatf/trends/v04/piefillawG.html
Waiting to hear how the p-man's story shakes out...
DNF's bald-faced assertion:
...actually falls short of "the whole truth"...There is a good reason AUSAs love working ATF cases, and ATF has the highest conviction rate of any fed LE agency. They know the law, and work good cases.
Link:http://trac.syr.edu/tracatf/newfindings/current/
Attorney General Ashcroft, in his January speech, claimed that "the conviction rate for federal gun crime prosecutions was nearly 90 percent in FY year 2002." For those who are actually indicted -- or formally charged -- the conviction rate with these crimes is indeed high, running 83 to 85 percent in each of the last five years. (See table.)
When calculated another way, however, the Justice Department's official numbers are less impressive. Every year, after considering all the weapons cases the ATF has recommended for prosecution, a certain number are declined by assistant U.S. Attorneys or dismissed by federal judges. When looked at though this lens -- the percent of all weapons matters disposed of where the defendant was found guilty -- the ATF conviction rate is quite different than that cited by the attorney general. In FY 1998, 54% of all referrals led to a conviction. This dropped to 42% in FY 1999, 43% in FY 2000, 42% in 2001 and 44% in 2002. (See table.)
An examination of the proportion of ATF referrals for prosecution that Assistant U.S. attorneys across the country decide are worthy of actual prosecution in court raises a second question. Five years ago, when compared to the other major investigative agencies, the ATF had an above average record. Now, it has slipped below the average. (See graph and table.)
Even when looking only at weapons prosecutions, ATF's record does not measure up quite as well as other agencies. In FY 2002, somewhat more than half of ATF weapons referrals under 18 USC 922 (56% of them) were prosecuted. By comparison, over two thirds of the weapons matters referred to the prosecutors (71%) by other federal agencies were prosecuted. (See table.)
The comparatively long sentences mandated in the nation's gun laws for defendants convicted on weapons charges have for many years meant that the ATF has ranked near the top of all federal agencies in terms of median and average prison terms that result from its investigations. While this is still true, the median or typical ATF sentence in recent years is now lower than it was in the mid-1990s. Since the Justice Department began collecting such information, the agency's highest median sentence -- half got more, half got less -- was 57 months. This was recorded in FY 1996. For FY 2000, 2001 and 2002, the median sentence for each year was 41 months. (See graph and table.)
It is widely assumed by crime experts that the use of illegal guns is a core problem of the nation's big cities. But current data show that the ATF continues to focus a good part of its enforcement efforts in the less populous and more rural districts rather than in the major cities. Measured in per capita terms -- the number of referrals in each federal district in relation to its population -- among the areas with below average ATF presence were California Central (Los Angeles), Illinois North (Chicago), California North (San Francisco), Massachusetts (Boston), Georgia North (Atlanta), the District of Columbia, New York South (Manhattan), and Michigan East (Detroit). (See graph and table, as well as additional details.)
Comment: One wonders, if the cases for mere felon is possession (fip), as opposed to arguably "real" crimes were removed, what the american taxpaying public is actually getting for their money? Could they be more helpful, for example, by fighting terrorism? Nah, that's not really a priority...
See graph:http://trac.syr.edu/tracatf/trends/v04/piefillawG.html
Perhaps because of the ATF's intense focus on gun-carrying felons, the agency's involvement in terrorism matters was comparatively modest in the period after 9/11/01, despite its special responsibilities and expertise in conducting bomb investigations.
Although there were a relatively small number of terrorism and internal security cases for the entire government in the twelve months before the 9/11 attacks, the ATF that year was second only to the FBI when it came to referring these kinds of cases. In FY 2002, however, the year after the 9/11 attacks, ATF fell to eighth place among the agencies, well behind the FBI and several entirely new players like the Social Security Administration, the Department of Transportation and the Postal Service. While ATF terrorism/internal security cases did increase in the year after 9/11, the ten-fold surge in enforcement activities by all federal agencies dwarfed the ATF effort. (See graph and table.) Actions by the ATF to enforce explosives laws are in fact lower today than they were a decade ago. (See graph and table.)
Waiting to hear how the p-man's story shakes out...
Last edited:
