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

[jon_in_wv]

And you are from California which I hate to tell you is one of the worst offenders I'm speaking of. It pales in comparison to DC though. Its amazing that the states see the guns as the problem when they absolutely refuse to lock people up for their crimes. Oh, they will lock them up. But they will let them out just as fast. Its the justice system that is broken, not firearms laws.
If they could change ONE law, I would like them to simply enforce a criminals sentence if he violates his parole. Don't give him 20 years, them parole him ten times and keep locking him up for new crimes he will never serve time for. Parole him, if he violates his parole have him finish his sentence, THEN serve the time for his new crime. That would solve a LOT of problems.

 

[brickeyee]

And just to add to the fray, many places have a charge of 'assault with a deadly weapon' that carries harsher punishment than just 'assault.'

 

[ROGER4314]

Yes, that is a perfect way to hand out appropriate sentences and to some extent, that is already done. I worked in the Texas Prison system and whenever "Aggravated" was added to a charge, the sentence got longer.

In the lockup, any Offender with an "Aggravated" charge was ineligible for work that may require some trust. They did harder time and lost out on breaks that other Offenders might have.

Incidentally, any Offender with a sexual offense background is ineligible for educational programs that use computers in any way and all Internet use is forbidden.

Flash

 

[P5 Guy]

Crime & Punishment?

I see no difference assault/battery with/out a weapon. It all has an equal danger of harm or death.
Run along the lines of "Hate Crime" if your beating on me your are hating me at that time so why a division between punishment?
Just this one guy's opinion.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I see no difference assault/battery with/out a weapon. It all has an equal danger of harm or death....

So there's no difference between being slapped in the face (simple assault and battery) and being shot? A slap in the face is as likely to kill you as a .38 caliber bullet in your chest?

 

[bushmaster1313]

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.

I am all for enhanced penalties if a weapon is present, whether it is used or not.

If the threat of enhanced penalties stops even a small fraction of thugs from pocketing a gun when they commit their crimes a large number of innocent lives will be saved, with no burden on the innocent.

 

[P5 Guy]

None

So there's no difference between being slapped in the face (simple assault and battery) and being shot? A slap in the face is as likely to kill you as a .38 caliber bullet in your chest?

A slap across the face will never equal a bullet in the chest. The punishment should be fitted to the crime, sir. There is no legal need to write into the penal code that using one weapon over another needs more mandatory punishment over another.
Catching one off balance that slap could cause death, if certain unfortunate circumstances and should be punished as such.
These are my opinions.

 

[Frank Ettin]

A slap across the face will never equal a bullet in the chest...

But earlier you wrote (post 54):

I see no difference assault/battery with/out a weapon....

So I guess you've changed your mind.

...The punishment should be fitted to the crime, sir. There is no legal need to write into the penal code that using one weapon over another needs more mandatory punishment over another....

How would you expect the punishment to be fitted the crime if that's not reflected in the applicable statutes.

...Catching one off balance that slap could cause death, if certain unfortunate circumstances ...

But the likelihood of death or serious injury resulting from a slap in the face is far less than from being shot. So you were flatly wrong when you wrote (in post 54):

...It all has an equal danger of harm or death....

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

To chime in on the OP's question, yes, I think so. Just like Assault, or Assault with a deadly weapon. The later should incur way stiffer penalties. I see no difference in some using a gun,knife, hammer or whatever else. A weapon is a weapon. Some might be way more deadly than others, but if used in a crime they should be treated the same(with obvious exceptions, bombs, WMD's,chemical,biological..etc). Just my $.02.

 

[Skribs]

To play devil's advocate Cjohnson, you mention bombs/WMDs. Those are designed specifically to kill multiple people. So someone arrested for trying to bomb a diner with 100 patrons could be charged with 100 counts of attempted murder. Someone arrested for trying to set off a nuke could be charged with several thousand counts.

 

[Tcruse]

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?

I am not sure that your example would not be different crimes, so I would expect different punishment. Now, I do not think that someone who threats with his "fist" should get less punishment than one that uses a gun or knife.
Someone who breaks into my house while I am gone should be punished for that crime, not if he had a gun with him or not. We all need to think of a gun as a tool not as something evil or good. If you kill someone with a baseball bat or shoot them, that person is dead to the exact same degree.

 

[Frank Ettin]

... We all need to think of a gun as a tool not as something evil or good....

Yes, a gun is a tool. Like any tool it aids one in accomplishing his purpose and can increase the likelihood that he can effectively accomplish his purpose. It can make it possible for a good person to more effectively accomplish a good purpose, like defending himself or his family.

And a gun can make it possible for an evil person to more effectively accomplish his evil purpose of stealing from you or raping you or injuring you in retribution for some perceived insult.

A gun is not something that is good or evil. But an evil person who chooses to use a gun in the furtherance of his criminal purposes increases his capacity to do evil. And I see nothing wrong with additional punishment for making that choice.

Perhaps other tools (clubs, knives, etc.) when chosen by an evil person to further his criminal purposes might also increase his capacity to do evil. So if our legislatures tack on additional punishment for using those tools, I certainly wouldn't complain.

But if the gun is singled out, that's okay with me too. A gun is a particularly effective and efficient tool for delivering force (for good or evil). That's of course why we all prefer guns for our own self defense.

 

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I agree Skribs. I just think the penalties for using WMD's, Bombs..etc should be the most severe.. I agree with firearms being just a tool. So if someone uses a knife, gun, or ice pick, it should be the same.. A deadly weapon. The keyis the context that it is used.

 

[Neverwinter]

And a gun can make it possible for an evil person to more effectively accomplish his evil purpose of stealing from you or raping you or injuring you in retribution for some perceived insult.

A gun is not something that is good or evil. But an evil person who chooses to use a gun in the furtherance of his criminal purposes increases his capacity to do evil. And I see nothing wrong with additional punishment for making that choice.

This is the same reason that some abuses are increased in severity by the aggressor being in a position of authority over the victim. It's not that there is anything inherently good or bad about the authority. It's the misuse of that authority which is being punished over a crime that is committed in absence of that misuse.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Is the ever present pavement a potentialy deadly weapon?
The man in the linked story below is charged with manslaughter after shoveing a friend in an argument and causing his head to hit the pavement resulting in death.

http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/i...hoving-death/9f61372b52cb45fdba03633911fe9218

Don't most unarmed attacks happen on paved surfaces?
Just something to ponder.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Don't most unarmed attacks happen on paved surfaces?
Just something to ponder.

Then ponder it if you want. I see no reason to bother.

The reality is that people have been intentionally killed in all sorts of ways, with all sorts of improvised weapons and as the result of all sorts of fortuitous circumstances. That doesn't change the fact that a gun is a particularly effective and efficient tool for the projection of significant force at a distance.

That attribute of a gun makes it a particularly useful tool well adapted to evil applications, such as assuring compliance of a victim, by someone so inclined. Similarly, a gun is a particularly useful tool well adapted to worthwhile purposes, such as defending one's family, by a good person.

A gun is far better suited to either purpose than the pavement.

 

[tek610]

I am not sure that your example would not be different crimes, so I would expect different punishment. Now, I do not think that someone who threats with his "fist" should get less punishment than one that uses a gun or knife.
Someone who breaks into my house while I am gone should be punished for that crime, not if he had a gun with him or not. We all need to think of a gun as a tool not as something evil or good. If you kill someone with a baseball bat or shoot them, that person is dead to the exact same degree.

Tcruse is right- Navy's example constitutes two different crimes: theft and robbery. They are punished differently.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

late to this topic,
But a crime is a crime is a crime..
CAlling it "gun crime" is like calling something a hate crime. It's just another way for the sheep to say something is Baaaaaaaaaaadddd, while ignoring the actual problem..
IE.. PC-BS

 

[jon_in_wv]

There is something wrong when crooks serve the same time for murder as possessing a gun or drugs illegally but there is also something to be said for gun enhancements. If the guy is facing more time for using a gun to commit his crimes than without maybe he will leave the gun at home when he does it. It's harder for the antis to argue for tighter gun control if crooks aren't armed. The goal after all is the keep the guns in the hands of good folks and out of the hands of the bad guys.

 

[deadin]

The act is the issue.

I agree with this.... However, I've always wondered why, if you shoot someone and don't kill them, it's "attempted murder" and doesn't carry as much penalty as murder? Should there be a reward for being a bad shot?? The intent was to kill.

 

[Alnamvet68]

A simple answer to the OP, yes! Crimes committed using a handgun, truncheon, knife, explosive device, etc., (excluding speeding in your car) should be no less then 20 years with no parole; if a death occurs as a result, life with no parole. If this is a second or more offense in the use of a weapon (handgun, truncheon, knife, explosive device, etc, and excluding speeding in your car) to commit a crime, and results in the death of a victim, then the death penalty should and be the only option. My humble opinion, of course.

 

[jmorris]

Crimes committed using a deadly weapon should be no less then 20 years with no parole

Too bad its not that simple. Speed in your car and you are commiting a crime with something that could be a deadly weapon.

 

[Alnamvet68]

Too bad its not that simple. Speed in your car and you are commiting a crime with something that could be a deadly weapon.

Post edited to clarify and reduce the opportunity to parse and take out of context the spirit and intent of the post.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I know a bunch of criminal defense attorneys that would say mandatory sentencing and penalties are clogging up the system.

You can't 'cut a first time offender slack', (get him to join the Marines etc. like they could back in the 60's) when you commit a crime with a gun.

 

[gdcpony]

I have no issue with stiffer punishments for weapon use in a crime. However, I would not want to be the one writing the law though. It would have to be weapon not gun.