Philadelphia opens 'gun court'

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
Philadelphia opens 'gun court'

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Posted: 9:48 AM EST (1448 GMT)

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Court officials frustrated with their inability to dam the flood of illegal handguns on Philadelphia's streets are hoping they'll do better by targeting people who break gun laws.

The city on Monday opened its first courtroom dedicated solely to gun possession cases. The muscle of the so-called "gun court" will be probation officers who'll have a lighter-than-normal caseload (75 clients apiece, rather than the standard 236) so they can spend more time checking on offenders.

People on probation for gun crimes will be expected to meet with probation officials at least once a week, rather than the usual once a month. Some will be subjected to unannounced home visits by police and to random drug tests. Most will be required to attend anti-violence or anger management counseling sessions.

They'll also have their cases handled by a single judge who will also review how people are complying with the program.

The gun court won't handle cases involving violence, and people will be diverted to the program only if gun possession is the most serious crime they face. Many who appear are likely to be facing only a short jail sentence or probation.

"We are trying to prevent them from ever offending again," District Attorney Lynne Abraham said. "By focusing on intense tracking and tracing and supervision, we might dissuade this person from thinking it is OK to carry a gun."

The program has been modeled, in part, on "drug court" programs in which people facing drug possession charges are diverted into lengthy, court-supervised treatment programs rather than being sent to prison.

It's unclear how successfully the idea will translate to guns in Philadelphia, where shootings are reported several times a day and where there were 328 murders last year.

The first defendant to appear in the new court, Joseph Washington, was 48 and had never been arrested before. A police officer found a gun in the car Washington was driving after a traffic stop.

"It was a mistake," said Washington, who pleaded guilty. Judge Jeffrey Minehart sentenced him to three years of probation.

Other cities have experimented with courts specializing in gun crimes, with varying methods and goals.

Providence, Rhode Island, opened a gun court in 1994, and prosecutors said it has been very efficient. Before, the average gun case in Providence took nearly a year and a half to complete. Now it takes about six months.

When New York opened a gun court in Brooklyn in 2003, one of its goals was to encourage adherence to the state's sentencing rules for gun crimes. The result has been longer jail terms for offenders, and a sharp increase in the number of inmates serving at least a year in jail for illegally possessing a gun.

Source http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/11/guncourt.ap/index.html
 
Assuming the gentleman wasn't a felon-in-posession, doesn't 3 years probation strike anyone as absurd for failing to toss the gun into the trunk/failing to obtain an LTCF?

Drug Courts: The courts of chemical prohibition....
Gun Courts: The courts of gun prohibition....
 
This is pure ????ing genius. Why would you want to crack down on _violent felons_ who break gun laws when you can waste resources harassing people who broke ONLY gun laws and nothign else? Why so much effort to produce conformity in the least criminal gun posessors? I would just leave the area and to hell with violating probation. If they dont want me to defend myself, I'll just go to a more permissive locale.
 
The gun court won't handle cases involving violence

:rolleyes:

There should be no such thing as a gun crime that doesn't involve violence ... no violence ... no crime.

okay, another one :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Standing Wolf said
Oh, gosh! They're going to be sending guns to prison now? I sure am glad all my guns are peaceful!

BS every one knows guns are evil.
 
Why would you want to crack down on _violent felons_ who break gun laws

You wouldn't. Those guys are dangerous!!! Odds of going home safe at the end of the day are not auspicious.

A bully only goes after those who don't fight back. That is what you see here. Typical path of least resistance.
 
Zundfolge- So, burglary and theft are no longer crimes? ;)

Ryder- yeah, because the street officers who actually have to, you know, go after these guys so definately want to catch someone bounced off probation/parole on a technical violation, as opposed to an armed robber with blood currently on his hands. Right. And the courts, who have to deal only with the offenders (dangerous or not) after they have been subdued and cuffed and chained to the floor, are sorely afraid of dealing with the Really Bad Guys.

Sorry, not buying it.

I'm not saying this is anything other than a new, creative way to urinate away taxpayer money, but it deserves a better argument than soundblurb rhetoric.

My thought? You did a violent crime. You should be in jail. Actually physically situated in a room with no way out. Not on parole. Not on probabtion. Not in a half-way house. Not on work release. In. Jail. For years. But I know, that logic eludes our politicians. Or rather, they're cool with it, until the time comes to pay the bill.

Mike
 
Coronach - Who said anything about probation violators? I am talking about totally honest people. Let me quote: "Joseph Washington, was 48 and had never been arrested before." (emphasis mine)
 
This whole scheme is a probation system. By definition, it involves probation, and the violations thereof. Your example, while a first time offender, would be placed on probation and into the hands of probation officers.

The crux of your argument seems to be the whole violent vs non-violent felon issue...they're "messing with" the non-violent ones, not the really bad guys. The reason that the argument falls flat is because violent felons are not eligible for the program- because they are jailed. You'd prefer them be out and eligible for this program? Or, you'd prefer that these not-so-bad guys like Mr. Washington be in jail?

And before you say "I'd prefer that X not be a crime" that's fine...but don't blame the courts (judicial) and the cops (executive) for the legislature's bad choices.

Mike
 
Sorry, Coronach, Sounds Too Much Like

That "Gun Court" I hear they have in Jamaica. I think one can be sent away for just about forever there, for possession of one .22 cartridge. God help'em, they're not going to solve social problems like the ones they have by passing silly laws...
 
From a different article: "This is intensive supervision. There are pre-trial conditions: anger management; surrender of all guns; signing on to a program of intense supervision, one-on-one with a defendant." (DA Lynne Abraham)

This sounds more like a disarmament scheme for Philadelphia residents caught with a gun and no CCW. I also have my suspicions about which residents will be aggressively targeted by this court.
 
Coronach

And before you say "I'd prefer that X not be a crime" that's fine

Glad to hear that! You must be getting to know me pretty good or something ;)

Can't blame the cops? Are you sure? They do have a great effect on the shape of the law, especially the gun law. Do you know why a gun can't be concealed in your own car even with a permit in Ohio? Ever wonder where these " must declare to an officer when carrying" laws originate from? These are a result of demands by the state police! If these "requests" were not accomodated the law wouldn't have passed the legislature. Are these not statutes for which honest people get arrested? So I don't personally see cops as "just following orders". They are not blameless.

Judges too? Oh-oh. :D Now as far as I know judges have no obligation to "just follow orders" by upholding unconstitutional laws. They swear to uphold the constitution. Sorry, but I do blame them for ignoring that which they are sworn to uphold. They are obstructing true justice.

I know, I know, you've heard all this before... But hey it's a slow night here and I've been in Mr. Washington's situation so I just can't help myself. :) With any luck you won't ever be faced with such a severe intrusion into your life because of something as minor as being caught in possession of your own legally owned property. I trully hope that for you, as I would anyone.
 
Oh, whoah. Hold on now. Go back and reread my first post. I'm in agreement that this is legislative/judicial chicanery tarted up to make it seem like progress. I just objected to Ryder's argument that the reason they're going after non-violent gun-owning criminals is bullyism. They're going after violent and non-violent gun owning criminals, period. The violent ones seem to get your regular docket (in which a conviction will likely result in loss of your RKBA, if its a felony). The nonviolent ones get this new special treatment.

I'd far prefer that we just look at the actual, you know, crimes committed, and base our sentences accordingly. Read, if you're violent, you should be in jail. If you're non-violent, you're a possible candidate for probation. And ALL probation should be this intense, minus the anti-gun rigamarole.

Mike
 
Can't blame the cops? Are you sure? They do have a great effect on the shape of the law, especially the gun law. Do you know why a gun can't be concealed in your own car even with a permit in Ohio?
Yup. Governor Taft (the elected executive) said that he would support whatever the OSHP and the FOP said they wanted. Do we blame the labor union, or the spineless politico who abdicated his responisbility to it? I'm not pleased with the way that law turned out, either. But its the feet of the politicians who should be held to the fire. Otherwise the diffusion of responsibility, in any logical world, rolls right back to the feet of The People, anway.
Ever wonder where these " must declare to an officer when carrying" laws originate from? These are a result of demands by the state police! If these "requests" were not accomodated the law wouldn't have passed the legislature.
Again, I agree...its a pity that the legislature either 1. abdicated their constitutional responsibility to make law to another government entity or 2. Simply voted to do the wrong thing. If you're willing to be angry at the cops for that, you might as well be angry with at least 51% of the population as a whole that put the numbnuts in there in the first place.

I'll also note that you're changing the topic. This is a thread unto itself. Lets not hijack this one. ;)

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top