Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

[MasterDinadan]

Sounds like a stupid law.

Does the presence of a gun affect the sentencing? Sure, maybe add some percentage of the original sentence. Adding a flat 15 years is outrageous as that 15 years doesn't take into account mitigating circumstances.

The fact that the gun COULD be used to inflict violence isn't that relevant. A lot of things could be used as deadly weapons. We don't convict people because of things they might do, so we shouldn't be influenced by how certain devices might have been used. If the weapon was used with the intent to cause harm, then it's worth considering. Otherwise, it should matter little, if at all.

21 years for this is insane. Depending on other factors, a 19 year old could easily be rehabilitated and re-enter society after several years, with the right programs, but the sentence he got pretty much ruins his life. When he gets out at 40, he will have lived over half of his life alongside criminals and he will have no real future. Do you think he won't turn to crime again? The sentencing in this case is costing millions in tax payer money and will actually do more harm than good in the long run, all because he did a stupid thing and got involved in a stupid mistake where someone MIGHT have been placed in danger.

Mandatory minimums are necessary to prevent a convicted criminal getting off because of corruption or poor judgment, but these really should be set to reasonable minimums. Does EVERY person involved in a crime with firearms deserve 15 years of prison? I don't think so. It should be a few years at most. Remember, this is minimum. Truly violent and dangerous people can still be put away for much longer.

[Nobleshield]

Sounds like a stupid law.

Does the presence of a gun affect the sentencing? Sure, maybe add some percentage of the original sentence. Adding a flat 15 years is outrageous as that 15 years doesn't take into account mitigating circumstances.

The fact that the gun COULD be used to inflict violence isn't that relevant. A lot of things could be used as deadly weapons. We don't convict people because of things they might do, so we shouldn't be influenced by how certain devices might have been used. If the weapon was used with the intent to cause harm, then it's worth considering. Otherwise, it should matter little, if at all.

21 years for this is insane. Depending on other factors, a 19 year old could easily be rehabilitated and re-enter society after several years, with the right programs, but the sentence he got pretty much ruins his life. When he gets out at 40, he will have lived over half of his life alongside criminals and he will have no real future. Do you think he won't turn to crime again? The sentencing in this case is costing millions in tax payer money and will actually do more harm than good in the long run, all because he did a stupid thing and got involved in a stupid mistake where someone MIGHT have been placed in danger.

The reasoning is exactly "Well, the gun MIGHT have been used, and MIGHT have killed someone". This law (and others like it) basically exist just for the purpose of punishing people for what might have happened versus what actually happened or in some cases to punish one person when the person who actually did the crime cannot be (e.g. if they got shot and died while committing the crime, you can't punish a dead person so you heap all the charges on the remaining person instead)

[Deleted]

While that particular mandatory minimum sentencing seems to be rather pointless, i generally think mandatory sentencing is a good thing. It restricts the power of judges who should administer the law not impose it.

On a lighter note that sentencing is 40% more than you would get for murder with no extenuating circumstances found in my country.

[dextersmith]

The fact that the gun COULD be used to inflict violence isn't that relevant. A lot of things could be used as deadly weapons. We don't convict people because of things they might do, so we shouldn't be influenced by how certain devices might have been used. If the weapon was used with the intent to cause harm, then it's worth considering. Otherwise, it should matter little, if at all.

Why else bring a weapon to a robbery (be it gun or shoe)? To (threaten) harm. Fear for life in itself is harm.

[Deleted]

The gun not fired is hardly less egregious; it could have been.

You do get that this is stupid right?.
you should be punished for actions committed, not for actions you potentially could commit.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but crimes committed with a gun, as a accomplice or not, deserve the heaviest punishment.

but is illogical to punish the same offence harder for the extancy of a gun, or even its use.
if i kill my wife with a gun, why should i get 15 extra years for using a gun as compared to a knife?.
also the mandatory minimum vastly exceeds the actual sentence which doesn't make any sense.

If one of those two shoots someone, both should not be guilty of shooting someone because they were robbing the bank, only the one doing the shooting should be charged (and, likely, convicted) of shooting someone.

in most jurisdictions that is not the case, the accomplice is often treated as a co defender to any such charge, sometimes with leniency (relatively speaking).

[Deleted]

The ordeal would have a much more different tone if the laws didn't exist.

Regardless of if I agree with the mandatory minimum sentencing or not: Your cousin brought it upon himself and is the only reason for the ordeal. He is an idiot that screwed it up, not the law, not some judge.
The law maybe made his situation worse - but it is a situation that wouldn't have existed if he behaved like a normal, reasonable human being.

[zackeryt]

You do get that this is stupid right?.
you should be punished for actions committed, not for actions you potentially could commit.

- - - Updated - - -



but is illogical to punish the same offence harder for the extancy of a gun, or even its use.
if i kill my wife with a gun, why should i get 15 extra years for using a gun as compared to a knife?.
also the mandatory minimum vastly exceeds the actual sentence which doesn't make any sense.

That's not the point of the laws, at all. Using a gun in a crime dramatically increases the possibility of someone being killed. Have you ever heard a criminal say "I didn't mean to kill them?" These laws are designed to make criminals think twice about committing these crimes because of the increased potential of someone being killed. It's why in Oklahoma if someone had been killed in that robbery, you're family member would be facing capital murder charges, because all criminals who were participating in the crime at the time of the killing are legally held responsible for the murder. Don't want that or think it's unfair, DON'T get involved in the crime. No sympathy here.

[Nobleshield]

That's not the point of the laws, at all. Using a gun in a crime dramatically increases the possibility of someone being killed.

Why should the possibility of anything factor in to what actually happened? If someone is killed THEN treat it appropriately, not before because something might happen.

[zackeryt]

Why should the possibility of anything factor in to what actually happened? If someone is killed THEN treat it appropriately, not before because something might happen.

Because the laws are also about being preventive. And it's not like the criminals can act shocked at what happens to them. The laws are well known and the criminals made a choice to break them. Besides, waiting to really punish a criminal till after they've killed someone is stupid. If they've shown themselves to be reckless and put the community in danger, they get the punishment.

[time0ut]

Why should the possibility of anything factor in to what actually happened? If someone is killed THEN treat it appropriately, not before because something might happen.

Exactly! Just because driving at a high speed increases the possibility of an accident doesn't mean we should have laws about driving at high speed. We have reckless driving laws to handle situations where accidents actually happen.

[Deleted]

Besides, waiting to really punish a criminal till after they've killed someone is stupid. If they've shown themselves to be reckless and put the community in danger, they get the punishment.

yeah who needs due process and rights...

[zackeryt]

yeah who needs due process and rights...

They received their due process and rights, not sure what the point of that is.

[time0ut]

You do not get 21 years in prison for driving fast.

No, you get it for armed robbery... a violent crime.

[time0ut]

He was not robbing anyone, nor armed.

Yes he was. He participated in an armed robbery. Being the get away driver doesn't reduce his culpability.

[BLCalliente]

Obviously a monster. Or too stupid to be in society. Either way, I'm with the law on this one.

I know how fucked up our prison system is, but so did the guy who participated in the armed robbery.

If I know the potential consequences of an action and choose to do it anyway, I have resigned myself to the possibility of facing those consequences. That's life.

[dextersmith]

You do get that this is stupid right?.
you should be punished for actions committed, not for actions you potentially could commit.

It's not stupid. They brought a weapon to use if things didn't go there way. The very presence of a gun terrifies people. Thus, they did use the gun; not to kill, but to manipulate and instill fear. People were held hostage.

[Deleted]

All pro gun people should be against this kind of laws, because by definition it should have them face jail time. They could harm people with it or commit criminal activities.

[Zvinny]

They can be abused. I remember a case a few years ago where a guy let a friend use his car to go buy pot, but he ended up murdering the drug dealer and his family unbeknownst to the guy who let him borrow his car. Since he let him use his car to commit a crime (buying pot) he got the mandatory life sentence. He could have taken a plea bargain for 10 years, but decided to roll the dice with a jury.

[dextersmith]

All pro gun people should be against this kind of laws, because by definition it should have them face jail time. They could harm people with it or commit criminal activities.

Pro guns or not is irrelevant; they committed armed robbery.

- - - Updated - - -

They can be abused. I remember a case a few years ago where a guy let a friend use his car to go buy pot, but he ended up murdering the drug dealer and his family unbeknownst to the guy who let him borrow his car. Since he let him use his car to commit a crime (buying pot) he got the mandatory life sentence. He could have taken a plea bargain for 10 years, but decided to roll the dice with a jury.

No abuse here; he chose to be the getaway driver.....and he didn't do it to not get his share. Scum is scum. You think he would've denied the gunman escape if someone was killed?

Get a job!

[zackeryt]

All pro gun people should be against this kind of laws, because by definition it should have them face jail time. They could harm people with it or commit criminal activities.

Bull crap. Pro gun people (such as myself) want anyone who uses a gun in a crime to get the harshest sentences possible, because it's these idiots who make us look bad. There is an extremely important difference in legal gun ownership and using a gun DURING A CRIME.