Should USE of a weapon in a crime constitute a higher penalty?

[Skribs]

I'm probably opening a can-o-worms with this one, but from what I understand, the mentality of the gun community is this: make the action illegal, not the tool. So I'm not specifying owning a tool (be it an assault rifle, a handgun, a knife, or a can of gasoline), but rather the use of the tool in a forcible felony.

Should the forcible felony itself be the illegal part of the act, regardless of what was used? Or should the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime constitute a higher penalty?

I'll share my opinion after a few posts, I want people to argue my question first, and not my answer.

 

[firesky101]

I have no problem with stiffer penalties on those who use deadly weapons in a crime. As long as we accept that a car, lead pipe, knife, bat, etc. should carry the same penalty as using a gun. As long as the object is used with the purpose of threatening someones well being then it is a weapon.

 

[buck460XVR]

I think use of a weapon when committing a crime constitutes a higher penalty because of the intent and the raised level of a possibility of doing grave bodily harm. The type of weapon should not matter, just the use of one. This includes knives and baseball bats as well as firearms.

 

[klyph]

The crime is the damage performed. The punishment should be proportional to the total amount of damage regardless of the method or tools used.

 

[Skribs]

Personally, I'm with Klyph, although I do agree with the others that IF use of a weapon is penalized, then it should be based on the fact it is a weapon, and not on what type of weapon.

I think the type of person who commits a forcible felony, whether or not its with a weapon, is the type of person who needs to be locked up.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The crime is the damage performed. The punishment should be proportional to the total amount of damage regardless of the method or tools used.

I disagree. Let's say a criminal attempts to commit a rape, and they are on the verge of committing the crime when a bystander comes along and scares them off. What you are saying is that the criminal who gets thwarted in their attempt should get less punishment than the criminal who is able to commit the crime to completion because less "total amount of damage" resulted?

Or let's say a robber walks into a convenience store and swipes $200 out of the cash register while the clerk is stocking the refridgerators. Another robber walks into a convenience store and puts a gun to the head of the cashier and gets $200 out of the cash register. Both criminals should face exactly the same punishment because the "total amount of damage" was the same?

 

[AlexanderA]

One of the purposes of criminal law is deterrence. Enhanced penalties for certain behaviors, such as using a weapon in the commission of the underlying crime, are primarily for deterrence. As gun owners, we should be all for "throwing the book" at someone who misuses a gun in this way. Maybe other criminals will take heed, and think twice about doing so. Every gun crime that is prevented is one less gun crime that will besmirch the good name of gun owners.

 

[Skribs]

You bring up a good point, Navy.

I was more thinking though of someone who manhandles/threatens the cashier without a weapon (think big guy pushing around a little old convenience store clerk) vs. threatening with a weapon. Obviously there's a difference between being stealthy and being aggressive.

In our legal system, attempted vs. completed currently has a different penalty (if I am wrong, please correct me). Are you saying that these two should be considered the same?

Alexander, I specifically wanted to avoid the term "gun crime" because it implies that the gun and crime are linked. That's why I like terms like "with a deadly weapon". "With" implies that the weapon is a tool, not the crime itself, and "deadly weapon" is a catch-all to include an assortment. Getting rid of "gun crime" leaves a lot of "with deadly weapon" crimes still out there. My question is basically if "with a deadly weapon" should be a focus area, or if forcible felonies should all be judged just as harsh.

 

[BSA1]

FYI "throwing the book" at someone who misuses a gun in this way is not deterrence but punishment.

 

[AlexanderA]

FYI "throwing the book" at someone who misuses a gun in this way is not deterrence but punishment.

It's punishment for the one who did the deed but deterrence for someone who might be thinking of doing such a deed in the future. That's how deterrence always works -- by enhancing the fear of the adverse consequences.

 

[NavyLCDR]

You bring up a good point, Navy.

I was more thinking though of someone who manhandles/threatens the cashier without a weapon (think big guy pushing around a little old convenience store clerk) vs. threatening with a weapon. Obviously there's a difference between being stealthy and being aggressive.

In our legal system, attempted vs. completed currently has a different penalty (if I am wrong, please correct me). Are you saying that these two should be considered the same?

Well, you bring up an interesting point too. Lets say a 300lb, over 6' guy walks into a convenience store at 1:00am and tells the 100lb woman behind the counter that he will kill her if she doesn't give him what is in the cash register. Is he capable of killing her? Without external forces involved such as weapons or martial arts self defense, certainly. So is the deadly threat any less than if he had a deadly weapon? Doesn't seem so. I'm all for sentence enhancements due to the presence of weapons, but if you really think about it, is it more heinous of a crime for a criminal to simply shoot someone, or kill them with their bare hands?

As far as attempts, of course it depends on state law. Except for a few crimes such as rape and murder, in Washington State, an attempt to commit a crime carries the punishment of one less classification as the crime itself. An attempt at a class a felony carries the penalty of a class b felony, for example. (RCW 9A.28.020).

 

[MedWheeler]

Florida was one of the first states to pass a mandatory-sentencing law for crimes that were "enhanced" by the use or carrying of a firearm (the "10-20-Life" law.) After it was passed, around 1996, I think, the state saw a reduction in criminal misuse of firearms that continued for quite some time. I'm not sure if it still continues to this day.
I'm with NavyLCDR as well. I've never understood the lighter-sentencing practices that sometimes follow "attempted murder" convictions as opposed to convictions for successful ones. Is a person really considered less of a threat to society simply because his victim survived? Fortunately, more and more states are handing out sentences that are comparable to each other, regardless if a forcible/violent crime is successful or not.
I support laws demanding mandatory sentencing for the "criminal misuse" of anything as a weapon to do another harm.

 

[MedWheeler]

NavyLCDR writes:

So is the deadly threat any less than if he had a deadly weapon? Doesn't seem so. I'm all for sentence enhancements due to the presence of weapons, but if you really think about it, is it more heinous of a crime for a criminal to simply shoot someone, or kill them with their bare hands?

Think of it this way: the crime (robbery in your example) should carry a stiff sentence from the get-go. The presence/use of a weapon may enhance the sentence, like you said. But, it's not that the crime without the weapon is any less serious, and it's not reduced by the lack of one. The weapons-use charge, in Florida, is a separate charge, and carries a mandatory sentence to be imposed upon conviction regardless of what happens to the sentencing, if any, for other crimes. For example, commit an armed robbery with a firearm in Florida, and you're facing both that charge, and the display of the weapon during it (we'll assume the gun is not fired.) That gun charge carries a ten-year sentence. Plead the robbery charge down to misdemeanor theft, and you might get a year or less in jail. But, the ten-year gun sentence still applies separately.

 

[Fonzie2k]

I don't have a problem with harsher penalties for the use of a gun. Like it or not, guns are a more serious weapon than a lead pipe or a knife. This is why I carry a .45. Now I would say that assault with a deadly weapon should be a coverall whether it was a baseball bat, knife, gun or anything that can kill but I think a robbery with a gun is worse than one with a knife.

I am pro gun and believe in their responsible use but I think that the law should come down hard on people who use them to commit a crime.

As far as the deterrence theory of crime control, a harsher punishment is a specific deterrence to the offender because after they're released from prison they may be less likely to repeat the same mistake since it added more time/fines. It also acts as a general deterrence because the harsher punishment may prevent others from using a firearm in the same type of crime. The effectiveness of deterrence theory is questioned by a lot of criminologists and most evidence seems to point to the fact that offenders do not make a "rational choice" to commit a crime.

The effectiveness of such laws is kind of questionable but I have no problem with harsher punishments. I see firearm use and ownership as something that comes with a certain responsibility.

Almost $200,000 spent on my education and I've finally managed to apply stuff I learned in Criminology!!!

 

[SMMAssociates]

IMHO, it's just a "feel good" that plays well in Pravda....

The victim is just as damaged (or dead) if the weapon is actually used....

Just another way to demonize guns and gun owners.

The term "Gun Crime" should be the tell here. As in "so, it's not a crime if a gun isn't involved?"....

Regards,

 

[Davek1977]

I have no issue with sentence enhancements for the use of a weapon. With or without a weapon, a crime has been committed....a weapon , however, increases the risk of harm to the innocent, and gives the criminal a greater chance of being successful in his or her crime. A weapon is only used if harm is either implied or intended, either used to inflict harm or intimidate. Treating an unarmed aggressor the same as an armed criminal in the eyes of the law is dangerous on multiple levels. It does nothing to dissuade criminals from using weapons, and may actually encourage their use. Laws affecting the use of weapons in the commission of crime ONLY affecrt criminals by definition, and as such, I have little sympathy for them, and won't shed a tear if "Bubba" gets another year or ten because he shoved his gun in an old lady's face while stealing her purse. Chances are, that's not the sort of guy we want roaming our streets to begin with...and with the revolving doors of our current prison system, an enhancement that keeps Bubba locked up for a longer period of time doesn't cause me to lose sleep at night

 

[Owen Sparks]

Any threat of serious violence should be treated the same regardless of the tool or method employed.

For example, my elderly aunt was mugged by a young man twice her size. All he did was to walk up to her and say:

“Give me your purse and I will not hurt you.”

She did and he ran off never to be caught, end of story.

He did not have any weapon yet he implied that he would hurt her if she did not comply. He certainly had the means. My aunt was in her late 70’s at the time and might have weighed 100 pounds. The man was in his early twenties, over 6 feet tall and well over 200 pounds. If he chose he could have easily caused her serious injury or even killed her. His implied physical threat was every bit as dangerous to her as a gun because she would have no chance against him in a fight.

 

[Skribs]

The term "Gun Crime" should be the tell here. As in "so, it's not a crime if a gun isn't involved?"....

Wow. Very excellent point.

Davek, you bring up kinda the point I was trying to raise, that "with a deadly weapon" means that it's only illegal if used illegally, as opposed to being illegal if owned improperly. If our only "gun laws" were "with a deadly weapon" tacked onto the charge, it would give us a lot more freedom as gun owners to get some of the fun toys to use at the range.

I like what a lot of people in here say. Make the penalty for the crime harsh, with or without a weapon, and MAYBE tack on "with a deadly weapon" at the end.

Fonzie, a knife can be just as deadly as a gun. 1) most people don't lock up their knives. 2) I'm pretty sure more people carry knives than guns. I carried a knife long before I carried a gun. 3) knives can never run out of bullets. 4) knives are quieter.

I've also heard that knives can be more intimidating than a gun when used to coerce compliance.

 

[BSA1]

To expand on Owen Sparks remarks the felon that tried unsuccessfully to mug my wife robbed a elderly lady later that same day knocking her off her feet causing her hip to break. As many know a broken hip in the elderly is often a injury they don't recover from and they die from complications later.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Absolutely, in fact those are the only types of gun laws I honestly support. I don't care who has what until you use it for illegal purposes. Then the penalties should be severe. It used to be that unless a gun was loaded it wasn't considered armed robbery in some places. Robbers would often commit robberies with an unloaded weapon so they wouldn't face the stiffer penalties if they were caught. Now the threat of force or possession of the weapon have made unloading the gun pointless.

 

[Owen Sparks]

We have all heard the PSA:

"Use a gun, go to jail."

A man in my county was recently beaten to death with a Louisville Slugger.
Should his murdered not face the same penalty as if he had used a gun?
After all the victim is just as dead. His murdered knew that striking him repeatedly in the head with any heavy object constituted deadly force. Why should guns be treated any differently than bats or knives or a stomp to the throat?

 

[Frank Ettin]

I have no problem with sentence enhancements for using a gun.

• The defendant has already been convicted of a serious crime. Making his sentence longer just isn't a big deal to me.
  
  
• A gun is a particularly effective and efficient tool. That's why we all want to have one with us for self defense. For the same reasons we think it makes us better able to effectively defend ourselves, it also makes a criminal more efficient and more likely to be able to effectively fulfill his criminal goals.
  
  
• There is always the possibility that a sentence enhancement for using a gun will cause some, perhaps only a few, criminal to think twice about using a gun and perhaps forego using one. The deterrence effect does not have to be perfect to be worthwhile.

 

[mljdeckard]

I concur completely with posts 6 and 22.

 

[Kendahl]

I would not distinguish between guns and other weapons. I would also include, as weapons, size 12 work boots and the fists of a 6'6", 300 lb felon who just spent 5 years lifting weights in prison.

I would distinguish between different levels of violence perpetrated or threatened. There is a difference between a mugger and a shoplifter or a home invader and a burglar who targets unoccupied homes and runs if they are occupied.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Enhanced sentencing for violent crimes involving guns is based on the premise that guns are inherently evil. Is bashing someone's head against the pavement is no less evil than shooting them with a high capacity semi-automatic with a pistol grip and flash hider? Both have the same results. Neither guns or pavement are evil, it is the ACT of criminal assault that is evil.