You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
10-20-life Florida's answer for criminal use of guns...
- Thread starter Epyon
- Start date
If you listen to the legal experts -- lawyers and judges -- they will tell you that judges should not be constrained by such laws during sentencing. I think we can all understand the rationale behind it.
An otherwise decent fellow with no criminal record seeks to defend his family & property. During the course of the event, he shoots another person. But because the fight started in his yard and during the struggle crossed into a neighbor's yard, he was technically violating the law by shooting the man who was reaching for a pick-axe. He should have retreated to his own yard. Adding 10 years would not be in the interest of justice.
Such laws need to carve out a self-defense exclusion to prevent excessive prison terms. If you're not committing or attempting to commit a felony and you are acting in self defense (including defense of another, defense of property or habitation), the additional sentencing rules should not apply.
I'd like to see a law that says if you're a previously convicted felon and you use a gun in a crime, you get the 10-year enhancement (again, notwithstanding a proven case of legitimate self-defense). An ex-con pulling an armed robbery with a knife gets 4 years, but with a gun he goes away for 14 years. Seems right to me.
An otherwise decent fellow with no criminal record seeks to defend his family & property. During the course of the event, he shoots another person. But because the fight started in his yard and during the struggle crossed into a neighbor's yard, he was technically violating the law by shooting the man who was reaching for a pick-axe. He should have retreated to his own yard. Adding 10 years would not be in the interest of justice.
Such laws need to carve out a self-defense exclusion to prevent excessive prison terms. If you're not committing or attempting to commit a felony and you are acting in self defense (including defense of another, defense of property or habitation), the additional sentencing rules should not apply.
I'd like to see a law that says if you're a previously convicted felon and you use a gun in a crime, you get the 10-year enhancement (again, notwithstanding a proven case of legitimate self-defense). An ex-con pulling an armed robbery with a knife gets 4 years, but with a gun he goes away for 14 years. Seems right to me.
Here is the law, and I have no problem with it. Notice it lists the crimes specifically, not just any crime will get you the 10-20-life.
(2)(a)1. Any person who is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony, regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and the conviction was for:
a. Murder;
b. Sexual battery;
c. Robbery;
d. Burglary;
e. Arson;
f. Aggravated assault;
g. Aggravated battery;
h. Kidnapping;
i. Escape;
j. Aircraft piracy;
k. Aggravated child abuse;
l. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult;
m. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb;
n. Carjacking;
o. Home-invasion robbery;
p. Aggravated stalking;
q. Trafficking in cannabis, trafficking in cocaine, capital importation of cocaine, trafficking in illegal drugs, capital importation of illegal drugs, trafficking in phencyclidine, capital importation of phencyclidine, trafficking in methaqualone, capital importation of methaqualone, trafficking in amphetamine, capital importation of amphetamine, trafficking in flunitrazepam, trafficking in gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), trafficking in 1,4-Butanediol, trafficking in Phenethylamines, or other violation of s. 893.135(1); or
r. Possession of a firearm by a felon
and during the commission of the offense, such person actually possessed a "firearm" or "destructive device" as those terms are defined in s. 790.001, shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years, except that a person who is convicted for aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by a felon, or burglary of a conveyance shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years if such person possessed a "firearm" or "destructive device" during the commission of the offense.
Putting a shoplifter or drugy in prison for the rest of his/her life is pointless.
But if they're repeat offenders and have three strikes against them for various drug possessions, why should we let them stay out on the streets. How long before they end up stealing or robbing to support their habit? I'm personally tired of reading news stories about violent criminals, especially the ones that start with "A repeat drug offender.... charged with murder."
If you can't play by the rules, you go to jail. Seriously, if we started actually enforcing some decent punishment in this county, I think crime would start to drop finally. How many 50 Cent or Diddy types would keep using and possessing drugs if their boy Ice Cube went down for 20 years for repeat drug offenses? And don't get me started about all of their various gun charges....
the_pragmaticist
New member
As much as it pains me to type it out and read it, I have to argue that the habitual drug offender is not a good candidate for prison time. These people burn themselves out of society at their own pace and I'm not interested in paying for their food and shelter five years at a time, much less for 10-20-life. The drug trade is not even slightly impacted by imprisonment of the users who actually get caught and they pose no threat to society until they cross over into violent crime. Arm the masses and let us defend ourselves - proactive justice just p#*@es me off.
Divemedic - thanks for the facts. As it is, I don't have much of a problem with it.
I think the way to reduce crime is to enhance the penalties for those who have served time for a felony. If you didn't learn your lesson with a 2 or more year sentence and did another felony, we can certainly add an extra 8-10 years to your term. An on your third offense add 15 years or life.
California's 3-strikes law sounded good until some of the equine-posterior DA's decided that ANY crime could be used as an excuse to sock someone away. I disagree.
The idea is to change behavior, not seek out ways to punish people. If a 2-term felon is clear of probation/parole and shoplifts, that's a misdemeanor. With his prior record, he should know better so he gets to pay a high fine. With overcrowded prisons, the 3-strikes should be used only on those committing crimes against persons. I'll let the 2-time loser serve only 4 years on his 3rd conviction if he switches to burglary or auto-theft instead of robbing/beating/killing people.
A prosecutor in, San Diego I think, tried to separate charges of carjacking, armed robbery and aggravated assault on a 20 year old for his first offense. He managed the armed robbery conviction, then wanted to separately prosecute the carjacking & assault as strikes 2 & 3. (In this case, the carjacker got the car and driver's wallet at gunpoint then clubbed the driver with the gun when he tried to punch the robber. Three counts in one 2 minute encounter.) Trying to prosecute them separately so the 2nd & 3rd counts "follow" a previous felony conviction in a case like this is abusive by the DA, IMO, and corrupts the system.
I think the way to reduce crime is to enhance the penalties for those who have served time for a felony. If you didn't learn your lesson with a 2 or more year sentence and did another felony, we can certainly add an extra 8-10 years to your term. An on your third offense add 15 years or life.
California's 3-strikes law sounded good until some of the equine-posterior DA's decided that ANY crime could be used as an excuse to sock someone away. I disagree.
The idea is to change behavior, not seek out ways to punish people. If a 2-term felon is clear of probation/parole and shoplifts, that's a misdemeanor. With his prior record, he should know better so he gets to pay a high fine. With overcrowded prisons, the 3-strikes should be used only on those committing crimes against persons. I'll let the 2-time loser serve only 4 years on his 3rd conviction if he switches to burglary or auto-theft instead of robbing/beating/killing people.
A prosecutor in, San Diego I think, tried to separate charges of carjacking, armed robbery and aggravated assault on a 20 year old for his first offense. He managed the armed robbery conviction, then wanted to separately prosecute the carjacking & assault as strikes 2 & 3. (In this case, the carjacker got the car and driver's wallet at gunpoint then clubbed the driver with the gun when he tried to punch the robber. Three counts in one 2 minute encounter.) Trying to prosecute them separately so the 2nd & 3rd counts "follow" a previous felony conviction in a case like this is abusive by the DA, IMO, and corrupts the system.
I agree that this is an abuse of the system but many of the cases that the press has described as an abuse of 3-strikes were cases where it actually should have been applied.A prosecutor in, San Diego I think, tried to separate charges of carjacking, armed robbery and aggravated assault on a 20 year old for his first offense. He managed the armed robbery conviction, then wanted to separately prosecute the carjacking & assault as strikes 2 & 3. (In this case, the carjacker got the car and driver's wallet at gunpoint then clubbed the driver with the gun when he tried to punch the robber. Three counts in one 2 minute encounter.) Trying to prosecute them separately so the 2nd & 3rd counts "follow" a previous felony conviction in a case like this is abusive by the DA, IMO, and corrupts the system.
California's 3-strikes law only applies to violent felonies. In the case that you describe "the carjacker got the car and driver's wallet at gunpoint then clubbed the driver with the gun when he tried to punch the robber. Three counts in one 2 minute encounter." the crime was such that the poor misunderstood 20 year old scumbag needed to do at least 15 years if it truly was his first offense. It's the soft on violent crime legislature and soft judges for not imposing real punishment (deterrence) that forces a DA to jump through hoops to save lives by keeping a rabid animal off the streets.
The most infamous case... the one that the liberals in the media love to recall is the 25-life for stealing a pizza. That's the only side of the story that you're allowed to hear. The fact that a known violent felon and career criminal with two felony convictions roughed up some kids to steal their pizza (felony strong-arm robbery) doesn't get mentioned. He'd been given two previous chances (one too many) and then blew it again violently robbing kids. Do we wait until he kills kids? That animal shouldn't see the outside of a prison before he's 70 and too old to be anything but a victim of animals like himself.
LightningJoe
New member
We could get rid of mandatory sentencing if we had better judges. But we don't, so mandatory sentencing.
The judiciary steps on the legislature every day and occasionally the legislature fights back.
The judiciary steps on the legislature every day and occasionally the legislature fights back.
California's 3-strikes law only applies to violent felonies.
Not if you talk to some of the CA prosecutors. According to two that I've chatted with anyhow. In their view any felony is good to give them a 3rd strike.
the crime was such that the poor misunderstood 20 year old scumbag needed to do at least 15 years if it truly was his first offense.
In California, first offense sentences usually would garner about 8 years for the three crimes (robbery, carjacking, ADW), without any special enhancements for use of a firearm. The court could add a year or more if the crime had some especially grevious circumstance.
The usual mindset when it comes to crime & punishment is that
(a)don't do the crime if you don't want to be in jail for several years and
(b)a first offense may be an aberration in your lifetime of behavior but further offenses will be dealt with with increasing severity.
I think after two trials and two prison sentences any person has enough "warning" to change their behavior. Repeat offenders, IMO, should be required to do their entire sentence without more than 6 months parole for any crime. A third time before the court for a violent felony should be enough to warrant excluding that person from society.
Unregistered
Moderator
Why is shooting someone with a gun a worse crime than beating them to death with a baseball bat?
Actually, the beauty of this law is not the "life" portion, but the "10-20" portion. Commit any one of the above felonies while in possession of a firearm and get a 10 year minimum, use the firearm, get a 20 year minimum.
Note that a burglar who is unarmed and breaks into a home or car that contains a firearm is now considered by law to be in possession of it, and is subject to the provisions of the 10-20-life law.
Note that a burglar who is unarmed and breaks into a home or car that contains a firearm is now considered by law to be in possession of it, and is subject to the provisions of the 10-20-life law.
I like this law. It punishes those who misuse firearms. If all states had laws like this AND they were actually applied, in a very few years we would have drasticly lower crime rates (repeat offenders have to wait longer before they can do it again) and less excuse for firearms laws that punish the innocent owners. Perhaps this is why the gun-haters don't like it at all.
It boils down to a couple of things. Intent - if you carry a gun to commit some crime the presumption is that your intent is to kill anyone who gives you trouble. As opposed to the baseball bat which may inflict non-lethal (if painful) injuries or a knife which may also inflict non-lethal injuries. Secondly, if the perp has a felony record, by law, he shouldn't have a gun in the first place. He's not only declared his intent to kill anyone who tries to resist but that his disdain for the rules of our society.Why is shooting someone with a gun a worse crime than beating them to death with a baseball bat?
Hmmm... note that I would call that a perversion of the intent of the 10-20-life law. If you are suggesting that Danny Dirtbag, who is captured in the downstairs study by police can be charged with "possession" of a firearm that is upstairs and hidden under the mattress. Or a gun inside a gun vault/safe. Or even a rifle inside a locked display cabinet. Until such time as Mr. Dirtbag actually takes the gun to arm himself, I don't think he should be charged.Note that a burglar who is unarmed and breaks into a home or car that contains a firearm is now considered by law to be in possession of it, and is subject to the provisions of the 10-20-life law.
I think the law is probably a Good Thing™ since it specifies conviction on other felony charges first. As long as prosecutors don't get "clever" and equate ownership with possession.
I'd rather see Truth in Sentencing as opposed to mandatory sentencing. For the purpose of argumentation I don't really care what the sentence is. I just want a public pronouncement and then the perp actually spends the time to which he or she was sentenced. Sentencing combined with parole is a shell game designed to hoodoo the public into thinking it is getting something it ain't.