Will this work to stop killing with guns?

[44 AMP]

"For a failure to correctly prosecute the true criminal and subject him/her to either the death penalty or life in prison, the cost of that failure should fall upon the prosecuting attorney and his/her staff."

Now, a caveat exists, if the police manufacture the evidence which would exonerate the attorney and change the threat of prosecution to the police.

What I am getting from these and the rest of your statements is that, in your opinion, along with a death penalty for using a gun or a gun like object in a crime, you also want the Prosecutor, their staff, and/or the police prosecuted if, in your opinion, they fail to "do their job" (for any reason, it seems)

I know it is an emotionally satisfying thought, but, as stated, I do not think you proposal is even remotely workable in the real world.

First off, who decides when/IF the prosecutor has "failed"?? You?? Me?? some committee?? Chosen how, by whom, made up of whom?? etc...

Is it the prosecutor's "Failure" if they don't convict, and that person never commits another crime in their entire life? Is it only a "failure" if they don't get a conviction and that person goes on to commit other crimes?

Seems to me, that would be a matter of the free will of the person, not any responsibility of the prosecutor...

IF we were to prosecute our DA's and our police for failure to obtain convictions, (and based on a currently undefined set of parameters) who then would be left to do their jobs? Would anyone even attempt to???

I feel sure your intent is to "encourage" our DA's to do their jobs better than what is currently done, but I don't see how your idea is possible, or, even legal at this point in time.

You probably could make it work, if you were the Sole Autocrat with complete, unchallenged and unfettered authority over all matters on the earth, but short of that, I don't think it could be done. (and, even if it could be, it wouldn't be done fairly, now would it...)

The real problem is that people have free will. You cannot stop, or prevent evil unless you can stop people from using their free will. As far as I can see, the only way to do that is to stop people from living (meaning, KILL THEM), and that only creates dead bodies, who won't do what you tell them too, either....

I consider that a drastically suboptimal solution....

 

[dogtown tom]

cdoc42

Isn’t it the responsibility of the prosecuting attorney, e.g, the D.A., to review the accumulated evidence surrounding the case to decide if it merits moving forward toward prosecution?

Yes, but depending on state law it may require a grand jury indictment.

The police gather evidence, but the attorneys decide on the quality thereof to move forward or make whatever recommendation is available under the circumstances.

Yet you would penalize the prosecuting attorney "For a failure to correctly prosecute the true criminal and subject him/her to either the death penalty or life in prison.."

The prosecution relies on evidence gathered by the arresting officer(s). Crime scenes ain't like CSI Las Vegas.

Now, a caveat exists, if the police manufacture the evidence which would exonerate the attorney and change the threat of prosecution to the police.

"Exonerate the attorney"? Huh? When did the attorney get charged? If the police manufactured evidence its likely a mistrial or dismissal. The defendant my be exonerated, not any attorneys for the prosecution or defense. Good grief.

The role of the jury is unchanged. They should still be able to rely on the presentations of both sides of the legal profession to be an honest evaluation so they can establish an opinion of guilt or innocence.

It ain't an opinion, its a verdict.
Present the exact same evidence to ten juries in the exact same manner and you my be surprised at different verdicts and for guilty verdicts vastly different punishments.
While the role of the jury is defined, the demographic makeup isn't.

I’m certain the point of my proposal was to not save money by dismantling the system. It was to be certain the D.A. or other prosecuting attorneys concentrate on establishing the truth to be certain any sentence as significant as death is not secondary to winning.

So you want the prosecution to always seek the death penalty on capitol crimes and never anything less? You may be surprised then when jurors hold out on a conviction because they do not believe in capitol punishment.

Further, a criminal trial has two phases, the first deciding guilt/innocence (winning) and a punishment phase. Depending on the state or federal court the case is in, the judge or jury may render the punishment. While the prosecution may literally beg for a certain sentence....it ain't their call.

The judge doesn’t present the evidence to influence the jury.
This is strictly the responsibility of the prosecuting attorney to be certain the weight of the evidence is enough to honestly carry the recommended sentence.

Well no kidding.

For example, there should not be an option to allow for an escape from the death penalty by agreeing to a guilty plea. If the evidence shows a gun or any facsimile was used, that’s the penalty upon conviction because that would be the law (I propose).

Yet that isn't the fault of the DA or prosecution, but state law.

This opinion should not be viewed from any perspective other than one coming from what may be an ordinary citizen assigned to duty as a juror, as opposed to the demand that one should support that position with proof of didactic expertise.

Oh good grief.

 

[cdoc42]

I think you have seriously over-read what I said. I said:

"For a failure to correctly prosecute the true criminal....."
Someone brought up the situation where innocent people have been convicted and sent to prison.
The statement above covers convictions found upon appeal to have been erroneous. The prosecutor prosecuted the wrong person. That deserves an investigation to determine if there was a rush to judgement based on the need to win rather than search for the truth. There should be a punishment for that. If the evidence was manufactured by the police, that exonerates the prosecutor and shifts the punishment to the police.

But the main thrust is focused on convictions with the use of a gun not principally errorneous convictions. If there is a gun captured on the person or by cameras, that doesn't get more years in prison as punishment. That's where the death penalty comes in.

The basic concept should not be discarded because of possible unintended consequences. Once at least the concept is agreed upon, then negative and positive issues can be brought to light through discussion to determine if it is a workable path.

 

[cdoc42]

I will say, if nothing else, this discussion points to the complexity and difficulty in looking for solutions to gun-related crimes.

 

[cdoc42]

Here's one alternative that removes the need to examine my proposal:

https://files.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Giffords-Law-Center-A-Case-Stud

 

[OldMarksman]

"i think you have seriously over-read what I said. I said:

"For a failure to correctly prosecute the true criminal....." "

What constitutes "correctly" prosecuting, and who identifies "the true criminal"?


"Someone brought up the situation where innocent people have been convicted and sent to prison.
The statement above covers convictions found upon appeal to have been erroneous. The prosecutor prosecuted the wrong person."

That is not what appeals do--the facts of the case are rarely considered in appeals.

"That deserves an investigation to determine if there was a rush to judgement based on the need to win rather than search for the truth. There should be a punishment for that."

How would that work?

"But the main thrust is focused on convictions with the use of a gun not principally errorneous convictions. If there is a gun captured on the person or by cameras, that doesn't get more years in prison as punishment. That's where the death penalty comes in."

Why?

The idea is unworkable, and it reflects a complete misunderstanding of how the criminal justice system works.

 

[Paul B.]

"The idea is unworkable, and it reflects a complete misunderstanding of how the criminal justice system works."

What gives you the idea it's working?
Paul B.

 

[FITASC]

:
cdoc42 Will this work to stop killing with guns?
Well, it didn't when it was law decades ago.

Licensing of ammunition sellers and recording ID on ammo purchasers was federal law from 1968 until passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

Note that between 1968-86 several people were killed with guns.

I remember having to do an ammo log, even for 22lr; and I operated out of my home at that time. They eventually saw the stupidity in that and stopped that requirement. Now of we could simply end the 4473 stuff..................wishful thinking I know

 

[FITASC]

Is it the prosecutor's "Failure" if they don't convict, and that person never commits another crime in their entire life? Is it only a "failure" if they don't get a conviction and that person goes on to commit other crimes?

No, but what about these incidents lately where the DAs aren't even asking for bail for killers? Is that not a failure? If they refuse to keep a certain ethnic group in jail for dangerous crimes and then they go out and commit more crimes resulting in someone's death, should not that DA be held responsible?

 

[zukiphile]

No, but what about these incidents lately where the DAs aren't even asking for bail for killers? Is that not a failure? If they refuse to keep a certain ethnic group in jail for dangerous crimes and then they go out and commit more crimes resulting in someone's death, should not that DA be held responsible?

The people making those policy decisions are politically accountable.

That kind of misbehaviour is serious and a problem and a product of people having ideas that range from half-baked to intentionally malignant and electing people who agree.

One danger of representative government is that the people represented are wrong and myopic.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

But the main thrust is focused on convictions with the use of a gun not principally errorneous convictions. If there is a gun captured on the person or by cameras, that doesn't get more years in prison as punishment. That's where the death penalty comes in.

I was going to stay out of this, but now I can't.

The problem with many laws, and especially feel-good laws, is that they are written to address what some special interest (person or group) sees as a problem, and the resulting "solution" fails to account for other situations that may overlap but not deserve the draconian measures proposed by the law.

So, you want possessing (not using) a gun during the commission of a felony to require an automatic death sentence.

A good many years ago a young woman who was a teller at the branch of my bank where I usually go to make deposits or whatever was convicted of embezzling money from the bank. That's a felony.

But embezzlement isn't a violent crime. If she happened to have had a self-defense handgun on her person when committing any of her several acts of embezzlement ... your proposal would result in her execution.

I used to be a proponent of the death penalty. Since reading so many stories about people being exonerated 10, 15, 20, even 50 years later, I can no longer support the death penalty except in a very few situations, such as where a killer is stopped at the scene, in the act, and there is ZERO question as to who the killer is. Once we get to situations where the police investigate and the trial is based on evidence (often circumstantial), I'm out.

Decades ago there was a case of a young woman who was murdered in a downtown parking garage in the city near where I live. The police almost immediately named (publicly) a suspect. They hounded and harassed this suspect, and basically ruined his life. They arrested him, and he was acquitted. The police continued to suggest that he was the killer.

29 years later, the real killer was identified by DNA evidence and was convicted. The police, of course, took full credit for their unwavering commitment to solving the case -- despite having wasted literally years chasing the wrong suspects (there was another wrong suspect, too) even though there was no real evidence to connect them to the crime.

And then there was Richard Jewell ...

 

[44 AMP]

The downside to being the Red Queen is that once you say "off with their heads!", saying "on with their heads" simply does not work.

 

[cdoc42]

@Aguila:
Originally Posted by cdoc42
But the main thrust is focused on convictions with the use of a gun not principally errorneous convictions.

This is not the same as you inferred: "So, you want possessing (not using) a gun during the commission of a felony to require an automatic death sentence.

 

[cdoc42]

BTW, in reference to my post #45 when I directed attention to the giffords organization that planned to address the "core" reasons for gun killing, absent guns, this was a response I received from a close friend who is a life-long (80 years) Philadelphia resident who comments about a similar plan in Philadelphia:

"The neighborhood’s in the city are like shooting galleries. 500 still killed each of those 2 years and twice as many shootings that didn’t result in death. 85 % of those were victims of black on black crime. The one who should be shot is DA Krasner who said anyone caught illegally carrying a gun will not be prosecuted if they didn’t commit a crime with that gun. This isn’t exactly the recipe for getting guns off the street. The police commissioner said @$%$#. But Krasner was re-elected in a landslide.Because of this I think the Philly Project unfortunately will have very limited success. "

 

[berettaprofessor]

Believe it or not, it was Rush Limbaugh who provided a convincing argument against the death penalty that changed my outlook. In one of his books there's a chapter devoted to the discussion. And his reason had nothing to do with the crime or the charged individual; it was what making the decision to kill meant for our society and for the souls of those who had to make the decision. Which falls right in line with our unexcusable juxtaposition with other countries that still have death penalties..China, Iran, Egypt, Iraq.....

My real concern, back to the OP, with this legislation, is a) I like mail-order options for ammo, and b) that "bulk purchases" term. Are two cartridges a bulk purchase? If not now, will they be in the future?

 

[Big Wes]

Make the punishment be exactly like the crime they did, and there would be less crime. they shoot and kill someone, they should have the exact same thing done to them. Stab someone to death, they to should go out in the same manner. etc etc That way just before they go, they'll know exactly how it was for their victim. "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth" Also no long terms in jail one year max to fight the charges. I'm tired of feeding, giving medical attention, etc to them. If they're guilty on the spot no doubt about them doing the crime. The should be removed from the face of the earth immediately. I believe my theory would curtail a lot of brutal crimes.

 

[dogtown tom]

Big Wes Make the punishment be exactly like the crime they did, and there would be less crime.

Fear of punishment has never been a deterrent to crime.

they shoot and kill someone, they should have the exact same thing done to them. Stab someone to death, they to should go out in the same manner. etc etc That way just before they go, they'll know exactly how it was for their victim.

You would enjoy living in a Third World country more than this one. The founders of this country understood cruel and unusual punishment even if you do not.

"an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth"

Leaves everyone blind and in need of a dentist.

Also no long terms in jail one year max to fight the charges.

And then what? Let him out?
'Cause the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
I don't think that's the result you envisioned. Our Constitution gives the accused the right to a speedy trial. The time the accused is sitting in jail may not be his fault, but the state.

Delays in trials aren't necessarily the fault of the defense, but the prosecution and crowded court dockets.

I'm tired of feeding, giving medical attention, etc to them.

Then eliminate prisons and execute those convicted of any crime?
If you don't want prisoners being fed or receive medical attention because its exhausting, then what is your alternative?
Again, the Third World is where you should be because that's Third World level thinking.

If they're guilty on the spot no doubt about them doing the crime.

Yeah. Forget the Constitution. Let the arresting officer find the accused guilty and immediately carry out punishment on the spot. That would never be abused.

The should be removed from the face of the earth immediately. I believe my theory would curtail a lot of brutal crimes.

Your theory didn't work in the Middle Ages, wouldn't work now.

 

[44 AMP]

Your theory didn't work in the Middle Ages, wouldn't work now.

It worked in the Middle Ages, it just didn't work WELL for the innocent.

And, just for conversation, how does an eye for an eye work when the crime is theft, and the criminal doesn't have anything to be taken from them???
And then, there rape to consider.... Who's going to administer THAT "equal punishment"?? Not me!

I would also point out that in the days of our Founders, execution was not a "cruel and unusual punishment", provided it was not done by "unusual" means. Hanging, and death by firing squad were done, and not considered "cruel or unusual".

Being hung in a cage so you starved to death in public view, or being burned at the stake generally were consider "cruel and unusual" by the time of our Republic's founding. A couple hundred years before that, in Europe, they weren't. Today we have even more different points of view.

Clearly the system isn't being worked so that people are generally happy with the results, but there's got to be something short of "kill them all, let God sort them out" or we're headed for worse than what we have now, IMHO.

 

[Recycled bullet]

Have any of y'all seen the movie Judge Dredd or Demolition Man??

I am glad neither of those stories is my reality here where I live in Virginia.

 

[44 AMP]

Neither of those movies are anyone's reality....YET...that's why they're called science FICTION....