Ohio AG backs tougher prison terms for gun crimes

[Klingon00]

Speaking of which, as a law abiding gun owner I am angered more than usual when a criminal uses one of my favorite tools of self-defense in the commission of a crime. I don't like seeing our rights abused. Certainly, I am most concerned about government infringement of our rights and what leverage such abuses can give the statist busy bodies.

Speaking of which, statistics can be handy things. As pointed out, guns are not the primary tools of criminals. Furthermore, gun owners (and even more so the subset that have CHLs) are more law-abiding than the average citizen. There are lots of good statistics available to our side and hopefully more will be forthcoming. Such tools aid in our fight to protect our rights and roll back previous infringements.

I think that's part of what bothers me about the way this is being portrayed. To me violent crime is violent crime, and the tool used is somewhat irrelevant. A murder victim is still dead regardless if they were shot with a gun or stabbed with a knife or had their neck broken by some angry brute.

I see this argument used against me frequently by the anti-gun side. That the reason we need background checks on all firearms purchases is because criminals like to use guns in crime. Well, criminals also like to use screw drivers, and automobiles and bombs too... and firearms can be manufactured and stolen to bypass background checks. Law abiding citizens also use guns to defend themselves. I'd rather have seen this law target all repeat offenders without singling out firearms specifically.

It just sounds to me that the myth is being perpetrated that someone murdered by a gun is somehow more dead than if killed by any other means.

[JediSkipdogg]

Speaking of which, as a law abiding gun owner I am angered more than usual when a criminal uses one of my favorite tools of self-defense in the commission of a crime. I don't like seeing our rights abused. Certainly, I am most concerned about government infringement of our rights and what leverage such abuses can give the statist busy bodies.

Speaking of which, statistics can be handy things. As pointed out, guns are not the primary tools of criminals. Furthermore, gun owners (and even more so the subset that have CHLs) are more law-abiding than the average citizen. There are lots of good statistics available to our side and hopefully more will be forthcoming. Such tools aid in our fight to protect our rights and roll back previous infringements.

I think that's part of what bothers me about the way this is being portrayed. To me violent crime is violent crime, and the tool used is somewhat irrelevant. A murder victim is still dead regardless if they were shot with a gun or stabbed with a knife or had their neck broken by some angry brute.

I see this argument used against me frequently by the anti-gun side. That the reason we need background checks on all firearms purchases is because criminals like to use guns in crime. Well, criminals also like to use screw drivers, and automobiles and bombs too... and firearms can be manufactured and stolen to bypass background checks. Law abiding citizens also use guns to defend themselves. I'd rather have seen this law target all repeat offenders without singling out firearms specifically.

It just sounds to me that the myth is being perpetrated that someone murdered by a gun is somehow more dead than if killed by any other means.

Since this is covering a wide range of crimes I don't concur with your last sentence. A lot more comes into play when death is involved, regardless of the weapon, but that's an entirely different topic.

Let's take robbery, which has a greater chance of death, robbery with a handgun, robbery with a knife, or robbery with a fist?

I would rather support a bill called "The Repeater Offender Enforcement Protocol" where regardless of crime, each repeat offense is one level up. MM to M4, M1 to F5, etc. Personally, I support any bill that will toughen sentences, firearm wise, I'm against it. So I'm on the fence and I'll just sit there.

[SeanC]

Here's an idea: let judges work this stuff out. We need to give judges a great deal more latitude in sentencing, and then actually trust their discretion. Mandatory sentencing and steep specifications are why federal sentences are so draconian. Every politician wants voters to know that he or she is "tough on crime," and that message is sent by voting "yes"on any and every sentence enhancement. Pretty soon you end up locking a guy away for twenty years for drug possession. That's insane.

[JediSkipdogg]

Here's an idea: let judges work this stuff out. We need to give judges a great deal more latitude in sentencing, and then actually trust their discretion. Mandatory sentencing and steep specifications are why federal sentences are so draconian. Every politician wants voters to know that he or she is "tough on crime," and that message is sent by voting "yes"on any and every sentence enhancement. Pretty soon you end up locking a guy away for twenty years for drug possession. That's insane.

Here is where the great problem is. Who has the power now to determine sentencing?

Most would say it is the judge and I agree 49%. The other 51% are the prosecutor and the jail/prison system. The prosecutor determines what charges to go forward with. I watched Locked Up Cincinnati the other day and they arrested a guy in jail for posting on his Facebook page that he was going to make magic happen or something like that at a Reds/Dodgers baseball game. The officers charged him wtih trespass since he had been banned from the stadium in the past. The prosecutor upped it to burglary since he trespassed in the commission of a felony (his threats on facebook.) It ultimately was plead back down to trespass.

There's also numerous cases where judges have ordered people in jail/prison for six months or six years and the person gets out on good behaviour in half the time without consulting the judge.

I'm not sure the best method is. Right now it can be abused at all levels.

[Werz]

There's also numerous cases where judges have ordered people in jail/prison for six months or six years and the person gets out on good behaviour in half the time without consulting the judge.

I have seen judges sentence people to several years in prison, give them judicial release after six months or a year, and when they violate community control (probation) after another six months or so, give them an "unsuccessful release" from community control, thereby terminating community control and essentially wiping out the remainder of the suspended prison time. The judge looks good for originally imposing a tough sentence, and nobody notices the shenanigans a year or two later.

I have also seen judges grant community control to offenders without conducting a presentence investigation, which is directly contrary to statute.

Judicial discretion is generally a good thing, but that depends on the judge, and assigned judges are selected by random lottery, so it's a crap shoot.