CA: What is this?

[ArmedBear]

I still regard the law as outrageous, along with "Hate" crimes

I think that you will find aggravating circumstances in nearly every felony statute. Do you oppose all of them?

There are various degrees of unlawful killing of another human, for example, ranging from involuntary manslaughter all the way to first degree murder aggravated by lying in wait.

A law that uses your having false compartments in a car as a secondary offense or aggravating circumstance for the primary offense of narcotics transport is a law that attempts to punish professional drug runners more than simple drug users.

Is this or any law perfect? No.

Would it be more just to punish a drug addict the same as a professional drug runner? No.

Does it serve the cause of justice to try to differenentiate between the two when doling out sentences? Yes.

Is a conviction based on concrete evidence that someone is more than a casual transporter of contraband the same as a "hate crime" conviction based on one's alleged thoughts and feelings? No, it isn't.

Perfect? No. Equivalent to "hate crimes"? Also no.


My opposition to "hate crime" legislation is that it can be and is used to convict individuals based on their alleged thoughts and words, and that it is seldom, if ever, applied in cases where the victim is a straight, white male. I wouldn't be particularly opposed to a law that included organized and deliberate intimidation based on race, gender, group membership, etc. as an aggravating circumstance, if it were limited to concrete evidence, either.

For example: if there is concrete evidence that, say, a local Klan group got together and conspired to kill a black family, or that a black street gang conspired to target and kill a white family, because of the race of the victims and little or nothing else, I wouldn't have a problem with using that as an aggravating circumstance in a murder trial.

Concrete evidence that one's illegal actions are planned and deliberate is a different thing entirely from a thought crime.

 

[madmike]

Armed Bear: Yes, that's largely what I was saying.

I just don't like implications that (with hate crimes) killing someone of a particular group is any more evil, REGARDLESS of motive.

No one murders someone because they like them. And I don't draw a difference on hatred. Either it's a justifiable killing--defense, etc, or it's not. (Manslaughter being a separate category from premeditated.)

As to concealed compartments, can you assure me that if someone is found with such and NO drugs that it wouldn't be used as prima facie evidence of intent?

Didn't think so.

The law is outrageous.

Smuggling drugs is smuggling drugs, whether in the car, in a plane, on the person. I can only see an elevated charge if a nonsuspecting mule is used.

Otherwise, are you arguing that the defendant is OBLIGATED to make it easy for the law?

 

[50 Shooter]

Here's the pc:

11366.8. (a) Every person who possesses, uses, or controls a false
compartment with the intent to store, conceal, smuggle, or transport
a controlled substance within the false compartment shall be punished
by imprisonment in a county jail for a term of imprisonment not to
exceed one year or in the state prison.
(b) Every person who designs, constructs, builds, alters, or
fabricates a false compartment for, or installs or attaches a false
compartment to, a vehicle with the intent to store, conceal, smuggle,
or transport a controlled substance shall be punished by
imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.
(d) The term "false compartment" means any box, container, space,
or enclosure that is intended for use or designed for use to conceal,
hide, or otherwise prevent discovery of any controlled substance
within or attached to a vehicle, including, but not limited to, any
of the following:
(1) False, altered, or modified fuel tanks.
(2) Original factory equipment of a vehicle that is modified,
altered, or changed.
(3) Compartment, space, or box that is added to, or fabricated,
made, or created from, existing compartments, spaces, or boxes within
a vehicle.

So how is it outrageous? He knew what he was doing was illegal and that's why he had it hidden. He didn't want it on him and figured by hiding it he would avoid getting busted.

Like I said, if all he had was some money, cell phone... there wouldn't be any issue. The police would've looked stupid and he could've had his lawyer claim harassment. He's just showing his own stupidity by continually giving the police the means to bust him and show his true colors.

To top it all off he's on the cover of Rolling Stone rag, the heading says "America's favorite pimp"!

 

[ArmedBear]

Otherwise, are you arguing that the defendant is OBLIGATED to make it easy for the law?

No. Did you read what I wrote?

What I'm arguing is that building false compartments and using them to haul drugs around is strong evidence that you are a regular drug runner, not just some guy who does drugs and got caught driving around with them. This is not based on his thoughts, but his careful, deliberate actions. One only constructs false compartments in a vehicle if he actually plans it out, and builds them with care and effort. This is a concrete action, not a thought or feeling.

No one murders someone because they like them. And I don't draw a difference on hatred. Either it's a justifiable killing--defense, etc, or it's not. (Manslaughter being a separate category from premeditated.)

You just refuted your own argument. Certain similar illegal acts ARE judged more or less evil, because of the circumstances surrounding the acts.

The problems with "hate crime" legislation are twofold:

1. The track record of who rates a "victim" and who doesn't.
2. The use of one's alleged thoughts and feelings to prosecute him, rather than evidence for actual illegal actions.

The problem with "hate crime" laws is NOT simply that we look at one assault as worse than another, depending on the circumstances. We do that every day, and no one, liberal conservative, or whatever, thinks anything of it.

 

[madmike]

We're obviously agreeing in large part and not communicating the balance properly.

I'll leave it as: I object to ANY law that is or can be either prior restraint or used as prima facie evidence of intent.

I don't care if a drug using, gun toting gangsta rapper goes to jail. I do care if at some point, a cop can say, "You obviously PLAN to smuggle stuff!"

After DiFi proposed banning body armor for civilian ownership, I lowered my tolerance for such laws to zero.

 

[ArmedBear]

I do care if at some point, a cop can say, "You obviously PLAN to smuggle stuff!"

I agree with you.

This is a different issue from "hate crime" laws, however; hence our apparent misunderstanding.

I will say that there's a catch, though. Usually, the actual crime is not observed, and only indirect evidence is available (e.g. Bruno Magli blood trails).

So I also oppose prior restraint, and I oppose drug laws in general. However, I don't believe that, in the real world, we can bar all forms of indirect evidence when prosecuting an actual crime.