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

[Skribs]

I'm glad I asked this question, and I'm glad I got good answers on both sides. People are tackling the issue instead of each other (so far) even though there seem to be the two distinct opinions I thought I would see.

 

[LemmyCaution]

My feeling is that using a weapon to commit a crime is more serious than committing the same crime without a weapon-

The use of a weapon to commit a crime shows a lack of respect for the Bill of Rights. It spits in the face of the common agreement that we have a right to armed self defense. As such, the use of a weapon to commit a crime is also an abuse of the 2nd Amendment. It's, in a sense, a crime against the Bill of Rights, as well as whatever statute has been broken.

In a similar vein, persons who commit crimes in the name of their religion are abusing the 1st Amendment's protections of religion. Which is why we punish people who commit murder in the name of Allah (and hopefully someday punish people who commit murder in the name of Christ) more harshly than we punish those who commit murder for more quotidian reasons. Religious terrorism is an abuse of the common agreement to respect each other on matters of conscience and faith.

 

[brickeyee]

Enhanced sentencing for violent crimes involving guns is based on the premise that guns are inherently evil

No, it is based on using a lethal tool to commit a crime to gain an advantage.

 

[jon_in_wv]

The defendant has already been convicted of a serious crime. Making his sentence longer just isn't a big deal to me.

I would have to strongly disagree with that statement. I work in the justice system and I could site case after case after case of criminals convicted it state court who literally months in prison for robbery, theft, aggravated assault, etc.........they are released on supervision and continue to commit crime after crime. Anything that puts criminals in prison longer for their crimes is good for all of us. I know the problem is the broken parole/probation system and overcrowding in the state prisons but these people have to be taken off the street and if it has the double benefit of locking away people that will add to the statistics the antis will use to disarm us I'll take what I can get.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The defendant has already been convicted of a serious crime. Making his sentence longer just isn't a big deal to me.

I would have to strongly disagree with that statement. I work in the justice system and I could site case after case after case of criminals convicted it state court who literally months in prison for robbery, theft, aggravated assault, etc.....

I think you misunderstood. I meant that I would not be bothered, nor object, if a convicted felon's sentence were made longer because he used a gun.

 

[swalton1943]

As cap-and-ball replica revolvers are not not firearms according to the ATF, are they legal in Chicago? They should be, technicaly. Just a thought.

 

[mister_murphy]

I think you misunderstood. I meant that I would not be bothered, nor object, if a convicted felon's sentence were made longer because he used a gun.

Thank you Frank.

As cap-and-ball replica revolvers are not not firearms according to the ATF, are they legal in Chicago? They should be, technicaly. Just a thought.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/us_v_green.txt

I guess it depends on whose opinion you feel is important. Depending on court decisions, a cap and ball revolver can be considered a firearm.

The Court concludes that the [ATF] Bureau's interpretation of the
statute in question is inconsistent with the plain statutory
language and with Congress's intent as expressed therein.
Consequently, while the [ATF]Bureau may have been delegated sufficient
prosecutorial discretion to permit its selective enforcement of
Title VII according to its stated policy, the Court finds that the [ATF]
Bureau's interpretation or construction of Title VII is entitled to
no deference by this Court in construing the statute. Rather, the
plain language of the statute controls. Under that language, the
weapon in question is undisputably both a "firearm" and a
"handgun." Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment was
accordingly denied.

Edit to add...

While there has been discussion on whether or not a crime should have an enhanced sentance for possessing a firearm during said crime, nothing so far that I have found here has discussed Messerschmidt v. Millender. This case discusses a search for someone who used a firearm in a crime. I do think it is important to note. Its not just "if" a firearm is used thats important, its also important to note the changes that it may make to the search for evidence of the crime.

 

[alsaqr]

i believe that a convicted felon should get a longer sentence for a crime committed with a gun.

 

[brickeyee]

As cap-and-ball replica revolvers are not not firearms according to the ATF, are they legal in Chicago?

Chicago likely has its own laws.

they are deadly weapons just about everywhere.

 

[Owen Sparks]

i believe that a convicted felon should get a longer sentence for a crime committed with a gun.

Than with a knife, club or bomb?

 

[Frank Ettin]

i believe that a convicted felon should get a longer sentence for a crime committed with a gun.

Than with a knife, club or bomb?

If some legislature would like to enact extended sentences for criminals convicted of using knives, clubs, or bombs to commit their crimes, that would be fine with me. If current sentence enhancements apply only to the use of a gun, that's fine with me too.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Is threatening or harming someone with a gun any worse than threatening or harming them with any other means of violence? The results are the same, death or serious bodily injury. For example, a man in my county had his brains beaten out with a brick. Would it really have made any difference if his brains were removed from his skull with a gun rather than a brick? Laws that single out the use of guns presuppose that guns are inherently evil. The truth is that guns are no more evil than bricks. It is the ACT of murder that is evil, not the means used. A gun is a tool just like a hammer, an axe or a shovel. It is no better or no worse than the man who uses it. Only people are capable of evil, not tools.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Is threatening or harming someone with a gun any worse than threatening or harming them with any other means of violence? The results are the same, death or serious bodily injury. For example, a man in my county had his brains beaten out with a brick....

Balderdash. If that were truly the case, we'd all be just as happy carrying around bricks for self defense.

A gun makes a person more formidable -- as a criminal or as a "good guy." A gun permits the more efficient delivery of violence -- whether in aggression or in defense.

...Laws that single out the use of guns presuppose that guns are inherently evil. The truth is that guns are no more evil than bricks....

No, they recognize that a gun when used by someone intent on evil increases his ability to do evil. That's just as we all profess that a gun when used by someone intending to do good increases his ability to do good.

...Only people are capable of evil, not tools.

Yes, and like all tools they increase one's ability to carry out his intentions and accomplish his purposes.

A gun is a particularly effective and efficient tool. So a gun in the hands of an evil person significantly increases that person's capacity to do evil.

 

[Skribs]

LemmeCaution, I really like your point of view.

 

[klyph]

I disagree with the notion that criminal law serves as a deterrent. It is a retroactive punishment and only that. If severe criminal law were an effective deterrent, we could eliminate crime altogether by enforcing capital punishment for any and all criminal behavior. You can't modify social behavior through law, and it's a dangerous, destructive path for societies that attempt it. I'm all for punishing criminal behavior, but increasing the severity of punishment is not an effective deterrence.

 

[bikemutt]

LemmeCaution, I really like your point of view

^^^ Yup

 

[Jaymo]

I agree with posts 24 and 25. The weapon matters not. Knives and baseball bats kill people just as dead as bullets. It's tantamount to the thought police mentality of "hate crime" legislation.
The weapon and the mentality are not the issue. The act is the issue.
Killing someone with a knife or club is not any nicer than killing them with a gun.
Horrible acts are horrible acts.

 

[Owen Sparks]

This notion that guns should be treated differently than other means of murder goes back to the old gun control argument that if you have a gun you will be more likely to misuse it in a fit of temper because it is so easy to use. The presupposition is that if you have a gun you are up to no good and looking for trouble. That is the basis for most gun laws that treat anyone caught with a gun as a potential criminal BEFORE THE FACT simply because they possess the means.

Again, crime is an action not a tool.

 

[Frank Ettin]

This notion that guns should be treated differently than other means of murder goes back to the old gun control argument that if you have a gun you will be more likely to misuse it in a fit of temper because it is so easy to use. The presupposition is that if you have a gun you are up to no good and looking for trouble. That is the basis for most gun laws that treat anyone caught with a gun as a potential criminal BEFORE THE FACT simply because they possess the means. ...

Have you got any actual evidence to back that contention up?

As I've written before, a gun is a tool that makes a person more formidable. If he's an evil person intent on crime, it increases his power to do evil and further his criminal desires. If he's a good person, a gun increases his power to defend himself an others.

The gun as a tool is neutral. But it's appropriate to punish a criminal more harshly for his use of a neutral tool that increases his capacity to intimidate and harm innocent people.

 

[Skribs]

To those who are arguing gun vs. knife...that's not really the point of this thread. I'm arguing deadly weapon vs. none. In the majority of forcible felonies, this would be the difference between physical coercion or intimidation vs. threat of force with a deadly weapon; in the case of assault it's bare hands vs. "with a deadly weapon."

 

[Owen Sparks]

Have you got any actual evidence to back that contention up?

Just hundreds of state and local gun laws that treat people as criminals before the fact because they have gun that they MIGHT use in some future crime.

For example, if you get caught with a loaded pistol in your car without a permit in many places you will be hauled off to jail and charged with a felony even though you did not use it to harm or threaten anyone. The law is proactive in that it assumes you to be a violent criminal who just has not acted yet.

This collective mindset presuposes everyone is no better than the lowest common denominator.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Just hundreds of state and local gun laws that treat people as criminals before the fact because they have gun that they MIGHT use in some future crime.

You would do well to learn the difference between evidence, unsupported interpretation and guesses.

 

[klyph]

I think it illustrates his point clearly. If possession alone is a crime, then using possession to enhance the punishment is an easy leap, since you've already departed from sound logic by punishing an action where no one was harmed.

 

[jon_in_wv]

Thanks for clearing that up for me Frank. I did misunderstand your statement.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Thanks for clearing that up for me Frank. I did misunderstand your statement.

You're welcome. And I'm sorry for the confusion. Looking back on things, I could have been more clear.