State House News: GOP REP. PUSHES 10-YEAR MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR FIRING ON A POLICE

[cekim]

A lot of wind is blowing in this thread.

Oooh, we could set up a wind farm!

Oh wait, too much methane in that wind...

 

[Bill Nance]

Well my man, you seem to have all the answers, right?... or at least I'll let you think you do while I sit here shaking my head at how uninformed you really are after reading that post. Stick to your day job bud. You're not a lawyer, a judge, a cop, a court clerk, a prison guard or a politician right?

I've been intimately involved with prison and justice, including law enforcement (as a crime reporter) for over 20 years. Having worked in federal and state prisons as well as county jails as a volunteer for much of that time.

You can use google as well as I can. There are stories ad infinitum of petty crimes inflated into major felonies and innocent bystanders, often girlfriends or just someone who happened to be present, getting nailed under drug mandatory minimums especially.

The simple and obvious answer to your perception of criminals walking over major felonies is to have judges who are interested in enforcing the law. Truth in sentencing is one way in particular to deal with this. Parole should be a thing of the past entirely.

It's too bad you feel disrespected, but frankly that's your problem, not mine. The facts are that many issues are present when a judge makes a sentencing decision, from sentencing guidelines, to the request of the DA, mitigating circumstances, priors etc. You would have us tie the hands of judges, throwing out every one of those issues, issues which have been used by judges since the time of the magna carta.

Perhaps you're ready to throw out 800 years of anglo-saxon jurisprudential tradition and experience in the name of expediency. I am certainly not.

Mandatory minimums smack of guilty until proven innocent. They assume no rehabilitation is possible, which defies experience, and lump together the petty criminal with the career thug. They take away judges' ability to look at a case where the wrong person got prosecuted on a technicality and issue a sentence to fit the actual act.

Crime statistics do NOT show a giant upsurge in crime, violent or otherwise. Quite the opposite. It's been on a steady downward spiral for 30 years. Most of the mandatory minimums on the books are about drugs, which should be legalized, regulated and taxed anyway, and the mandatories are just as frequently pled out to a lesser charge anyway.

The real bad people you get with these laws do not make up for the petty criminals and plain unlucky people with crappy lawyers who get caught up in the same net.

And of course you forget the ability of the charging authority to manipulate the entire f***ing process by charging the mandatory instead of another charge, which, by and large has more to do with their own political careers and not with justice at all. Or do you think the fact that well-to-do people with good lawyers who commit 1st degree murder almost never get charged with capital murder is an accident?

Again, don't like the judges? get busy. It's called a ballot measure. I'll vote for it if I happen to still be stuck in this pest-hole..

 

[TonyDedo]

I can see the logic behind it.

1) some scumbag that is shooting at a cop is not going to have some soft judge be able to plead him out to some bs charge without jail time

2) if we were defending ourselves against some bad guy, we would not have the DA immediately charging us with the 10 year prison time.

Sounds right to me.

Sure, one logical laws in and of itself makes sense. But a thousand independently logical laws all intertwined and conflicting makes for one hell of a mess.

Plus I've never liked "mandatory minimum" laws; it's like the "zero tolerance" crap you get in schools (kid brings a nail clipper to school and gets suspended). I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some poor schmuck innocently brings a gun into a police department for show and tell and gets screwed by some headline hunting assistant DA

 

[biff44]

A guy is knowingly shooting at a cop. It is not an plain clothes cop that is acting as if he is a bad guy. The cop either has to be wearing a uniform or show his badge and announe he is a cop. In those circumstances, I can not really think of a reason anybody BUT a scumbag that should be locked up pretty much forever. Obviously, if the law is poorly writen so that honest mistakes are taken as attacking a cop, that is another matter.

But I just do not care if the perp had a bad childhood, his daddy did not love him, his mommy did not breast feed him, whatever the heck some liberals would say to try to get him off the hook....if this scumbag is shooting at a cop, lock'em up and throw away the key!

Seriously, give me a valid reason a judge could go soft on somebody knowingly shooting at a cop. Just one good reason.

 

[cekim]

Seriously, give me a valid reason a judge could go soft on somebody knowingly shooting at a cop. Just one good reason.

A judge shouldn't "go soft" on any unjustified shooting period...

That's all the reason we need...

I don't think any of the arguments against MMs made here suggest that we should have people spending less time in prison for heinous crimes, or indeed that they should escape the tree-chipper in many cases...

The argument against this is a principled one that says that any time you have 2 laws where one should do, you have legislative abuse, prosecutorial abuse and generally a waste of tax payer time and money to duplicate laws...

 

[terraformer]

Thin blue line just gets thicker and thicker. Last night I heard an officer refer to his fellow officers as "troops"...Another elevation to become not protectors of the people, but security for the ruling class. What gives me some hope are those who serve that see themselves as citizens - not "troops"...They are out there - I know some....

That slang may be more a function of where they are employed, and not a reflection on how they see themselves. Every region/area has their own slang. In RI you work "in the house", in NYC you are "on the job", etc; I also don't think cops really see themselves as protectors for the ruling class.

Most cops, although making decent coin, are not so flush they can hob nob with the elite. The economic upper class may tailor the laws to their benefit and by privilege of their economic status get access to police resources the peons don't, but the rank and file probably wouldn't like to see themselves as glorified security guards for elite rich brats.

The police state can't and doesn't happen until enough cops are given enough significant privileges above what the common citizen gets. Stuff like this law are treading dangerously into that territory though. And when that time does come, the rank and file have to be incentivized further to do some really stupid things. We aren't there, yet.

 

[economist]

Seriously, give me a valid reason a judge could go soft on somebody knowingly shooting at a cop. Just one good reason.

I'll give you 5 reasons:

1. The cop is the guy's neighbor and routinely harasses the guy and threatens to kill him.
2. The cop is feeling up the guy's wife during a traffic stop.
3. The cop is shaking the guy down for protection money.
4. The cop serves a no-knock at the wrong house, kills the guy's dog, shoots at him too.
5. The cop is married to the guy's sister and slaps her around.

And don't even think of telling me that these things don't happen.

My point is that cops are just people. Some are good. Some are not. They should not be a special class, and they should not require special legal protection. They get paid. If they view the job as a sacrifice, they can quit, just like any other working person.

But if none of that gets through, how about this: 10 years minimum for any LEO that wrongfully shoots a non-LEO.

 

[TonyDedo]

But the bill was intended to address the problem that police face, which is that many criminals would rather put a cop six feet under than get caught, and if they're not afraid of the penalty for trying. Keep those guys in jail longer. The bill doesn't address penalties for people other then police officers. Because of that, some people won't support that. This confuses me, because these same people say they support stiffer penalties for people who shoot at every person. Well so do I.

This one almost got past me - does anyone here believe that legal consequences (be it standard sentencing guidelines or mandatory minimums) deter this kind of crime? In this situation a criminal is firing a gun at a police officer - if he kills the guy, he's almost assured to going to jail for life. Do you really think he's going to stop and say to himself, "He, I'd better not shoot at this cop, there's a mandatory 10 year sentence." Hell no. Same reason why the death penalty doesn't deter murder. This is just another feather in the cap of a bunch of politicians which will turn into a bargaining chip between lawyers and prosecutors.

 

[rcinma]

They let our current "mandatory" sentences get thrown out now everytime the scumbag in question lawyers up and they start making deals. We don't need more BS laws on the books, we have to start enforcing the ones we have.

 

[ochmude]

<snip>
The fourth paragraph, again, total garbage. You don't KNOW anything. You THINK you do, but you don't. When the gang members myself and other officers take off the streets with guns EVERY DAY are in prison for the mandatory 18 months, I guarentee you crimes committed BY THEM are decreased DRAMATICALLY for that time, because how can you commit any crimes when you're in jail, hmmm?
<snip>

Are you honestly suggesting that houses of correction are free of crime?

 

[Cato]

This one almost got past me - does anyone here believe that legal consequences (be it standard sentencing guidelines or mandatory minimums) deter this kind of crime? In this situation a criminal is firing a gun at a police officer - if he kills the guy, he's almost assured to going to jail for life. Do you really think he's going to stop and say to himself, "He, I'd better not shoot at this cop, there's a mandatory 10 year sentence." Hell no. Same reason why the death penalty doesn't deter murder. This is just another feather in the cap of a bunch of politicians which will turn into a bargaining chip between lawyers and prosecutors.

Agreed.

And in a free country the purpose of penalties is not as a deterrent.

 

[cekim]

And in a free country the purpose of penalties is not as a deterrent.

I don't know what makes you say that?

The justice system cannot make victims "whole" in so many cases. So, short of "retribution", the only purpose of penalties would be to attempt to both remove the offender from the public to prevent that specific offender and to serve as a deterrent to future offenders...

Without a cop/soldier standing next to each citizen, they cannot "stop" criminal acts commited against specific individuals. All they can do is impose the "rule of law" which is by its very nature a deterrent promise that if you offend, you will be caught and punished...

 

[Cato]

I don't know what makes you say that?

If the purpose for imposing a penalty is to be a deterrent then speeding in a motor vehicle should be punishable by 20 years in prison. Speeding would almost be eliminated. Petty theft should be punishable by 30 years at hard labor. I guarantee you that these minor thefts would go down. The problem with this is that these punishments are not just. What we should be seeking is justice.

In a free society the judicial system is designed to dispense justice. In tyrannical societies the judicial system is designed to deter individuals from doing something that the State opposes. I'm sure you can recall instances where people in other counties "disappear" for many years when certain crimes are committed. It sure helps to keep people in line.

In a free society we look for justice, nothing more. If you swipe a loaf of bread you should be forced to pay restitution, pay a fine to society and serve a short time behind bars. Why? Because that punishment would serve justice. If you take someone's life then you should lose your life. Why? Because it would serve justice.

We have a lot if injustices in this country too. For instance, it is not justice when someone goes to prison for a victimless crime. This would be the State using punishment as a deterrent to prevent the subjects from breaking their rules. Not valid laws to protect individual rights, but simply the rules of the State.

Now it is certainly true that for some people the idea of a punishment will stop them from committing a crime. This should be considered an additional benefit but not the purpose of the punishment.

 

[seanc]

A guy is knowingly shooting at a cop.
....if this scumbag is shooting at a cop, lock'em up and throw away the key!
Seriously, give me a valid reason a judge could go soft on somebody knowingly shooting at a cop. Just one good reason.

How about one level of justice for everybody?? We really should not have some sort of Sentence modifier dependant on what somebody looks like or how "important" they are.

gets into some pretty fuzzy math, as opposed to the old "one justice for all" model that we strive for.

Shoot at non police white guy.. (sentence hypothetical) 10yrs..

Shoot at Black, female, off duty cop..
white guy sentence,
*2 for minority
*2 for female
*2 for LEO
-1 for off duty.
Ttl sentence 50yrs.. or double that if determined to be a hate crime..


Some are just more equal than others, I suppose..

 

[TomH]

You guys DO know that there's SEVERAL laws on the books specifically pointed at the protection of one group over another... right???

Punch a pregnant woman and see how fast you get locked up for felony A&B. The same punch to a "normal citizen" and you can't even be arrested if it didn't happen in a cop's presence. Assault an EMT or impede them in the performance of their duties and you'll be joining Mr. Preggo puncher... That's just to name a few.

I know a lot of you are hung up on the issue of a mandatory minimum, but spend some time in a courtroom looking at the inequities of sentencing (specifically in Boston, where I spend my time) and your disgust will soon make you a staunch supporter of mandatory minimums for severe crimes, I assure you. There's no need for mandatory minimums everywhere, but I tell you, I love the knowledge that when I take some gang member with an illegal gun off the streets of my city, I'm guarenteed not to see him again for 18 months.

But this isn't really any "special protection" if you think about it. First the pregnant woman. You are assaulting two people if you punch her, one of them a minor! If you impede an EMT you are pretty much assaulting someone by denying them care by force. Those make sense. On the other hand, shooting at someone walking down the street and shooting at a cop are the EXACT SAME THING!!! Both are people, their lives have the same value. By shooting a cop you aren't assaulting any additional people as in the other cases above. The only real difference is you're an idiot to shoot at someone who you KNOW is armed. Sure their job is dangerous and they are more likely to get shot at. Thats the job!! Should we make it a crime to shoot at a black person in a bad neighborhood because statistics show there is a high crime rate against black people there??

 

[abomb60]

You guys are going the wrong way with this. He's not doing this to protect police officers or do anything for society. He's supporting this bill so that he can show that he's trying to protect police and society and that he should be re-elected.

It's the same reason we have laws for car jacking & home invasion. Read the MGL's on those and then the MGL's on armed robbery & burglary. Not much of a difference but the politicians all get pats on the back for protecting society.

It really is sickening.

 

[isr2kba]

If the purpose for imposing a penalty is to be a deterrent then speeding in a motor vehicle should be punishable by 20 years in prison. Speeding would almost be eliminated. Petty theft should be punishable by 30 years at hard labor. I guarantee you that these minor thefts would go down. The problem with this is that these punishments are not just. What we should be seeking is justice.

In a free society the judicial system is designed to dispense justice. In tyrannical societies the judicial system is designed to deter individuals from doing something that the State opposes. I'm sure you can recall instances where people in other counties "disappear" for many years when certain crimes are committed. It sure helps to keep people in line.

In a free society we look for justice, nothing more. If you swipe a loaf of bread you should be forced to pay restitution, pay a fine to society and serve a short time behind bars. Why? Because that punishment would serve justice. If you take someone's life then you should lose your life. Why? Because it would serve justice.

We have a lot if injustices in this country too. For instance, it is not justice when someone goes to prison for a victimless crime. This would be the State using punishment as a deterrent to prevent the subjects from breaking their rules. Not valid laws to protect individual rights, but simply the rules of the State.

Now it is certainly true that for some people the idea of a punishment will stop them from committing a crime. This should be considered an additional benefit but not the purpose of the punishment.

+1

One of the most well reasoned posts I've seen in a long time. It makes me shiver a little to read it, as it illustrates how far we've fallen off the mark as a society.

 

[cekim]

If the purpose for imposing a penalty is to be a deterrent then speeding in a motor vehicle should be punishable by 20 years in prison. Speeding would almost be eliminated.

I didn't say it was "THE" purpose, I said it was one of the purposes...

The deterrent has to be balanced against the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment"...

To buy your thesis, I would have to presume that the only reason people don't commit crime is that they are just fundamentally "good" (and those that do are just fundamentally bad).

The reality is in between and to demonstrate you need look no further than the tax code... Many people in MA knowingly violate the tax laws by shopping in NH. This practice is so prevalent that you hear ads on TV and Radio flaunting this benefit of shopping over the border...

Then look at speeding - when people see the cruiser - what do they do? SLOW DOWN. They are deterred from speeding in sight of the officer... (of course most do it way to late and make fools of themselves, but that's for the traffic cop to enjoy.

The deterrent is the absolutely essential "tooth" of the law. It's the answer to the age old question of "what are you going to do about it?"

Raising kids or animals should demonstrate to anyone that until they can understand the ethical reasons not to do bad things, the only reason they don't do them is because "I said so" and that is backed up with a punishment. Once they have a grasp on ethics (presuming their parents bother to teach them ethics and/or morals), then they can deter themselves. Either fear of punishment, retribution or "God" (whatever works). They are deterred...

Same goes for adults - only the parents are the government and the kids can do more damage...