That makes perfect sense.
Democommie relates:
I used to work in Boston,. in the Financial district during a period when there was a spate of intimidation robberies. Young african american men in a group would approach a lone pedestrian and ASK for their money and other valuables. A jacket would be pulled aside to reveal a gun butt and the "request" would be honored.Now, that's the perfect example of otherwise law abiding citizens--they would be perfectly law abiding if they weren't trying to rob you!
I pointed out that those young thugs had a constitutional right to carry their firearms.
I think it is awful that anyone would want to infringe upon a thugs right to carry concealed firearms. They shouldn't be prosecuted for exercising their constitutional right. After all, they are otherwise law abiding citizens.
Even better, we can change the stand your ground laws so that those young thugs can't be prosecuted. After all, they had a legal right to be there.
As I said, I've seen the light.
Laws make criminals--let's get rid of the laws!
From a legal standpoint:
ReplyDelete"Constitutional carry" does not apply to the thugs who first conspired (a felony) and then set out to rob someone.
From a law enforcement or public safety standpoint:
If the thugs had no prior criminal record, and if a law enforcement officer happened to stop them before they committed their crime, and if the officer had no knowledge of their conspiracy, the officer would have no legal basis to arrest them and prevent the future crime.
Unfortunately, criminals enjoy an "uneven playing field". Law enforcement cannot arrest and prosecute without evidence. Of course evidence cannot possibly exist until after the criminal commits the crime. By definition law enforcement is reactionary.
I don't see where "constitutional carry" is the big failure. The big failure is our criminal justice system. We all know how criminals are imprisoned with short sentences, released, commit more crimes, imprisoned again, released again, and so on. If violent criminals never saw the light of day again, that would seriously reduce repeat offenses.
And it might discourage would-be criminals from getting started. As it stands, imprisoned criminals enjoy free medical and dental care, three square meals a day, free college education, exercise equipment, etc. I'm not saying prison is a cake walk. But if it were such a horrible way to finish your years, our prisons wouldn't be busting at the seams.
Back to the example of the thugs ... what do they care if police catch them? So what if they spend two years in prison. That's a chance to learn more tactics from other "professionals" ... all the while not having to worry about finding their next meal, or victim.
Really anonymous--Constitutional carry doesn't apply to thugs?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that they won't be the beneficiaries if police can't stop someone if they are only carrying a firearms without a licence?
And if more law abiding people are carrying firearms, police won't be reticent to stop and search someone for only carrying a firearm for fear of harassing a law abiding citizen?
You mean the police will be able to tell the law abiding from the non-law abiding--by what means? Racial profiling?
Criminals under this system have an even more unequal playing field.
You have given them get out of jail free cards.
But you point out,this is only the cost of freedom that Criminals have the benefits of all these protections in the bill of rights--let's just give them some more.
I agree with you, this makes perfect sense.
We need constitutional carry to make it easier for criminals to carry guns.
Thanks for proving my point!
I couldn't agree more.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteWould you be satisfied with a shall-issue licensing system that runs background checks on anyone applying for a license? That would make it clear that anyone legally carrying a handgun has been checked out.
"Would you be satisfied with a shall-issue licensing system that runs background checks on anyone applying for a license?"
ReplyDeleteWhen it's coupled with a truly functional NICS system and registration of all handguns owned by the licensee, sure.
Anonymook:
"We all know how criminals are imprisoned with short sentences, released, commit more crimes, imprisoned again, released again, and so on. If violent criminals never saw the light of day again, that would seriously reduce repeat offenses."
You THINK you KNOW that. Lotsa citations are required to support that nonsensical assertion.
This table:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl10.xls
Shows that over half of all murders committed in the U.S. are committed by persons known to the victim.
This table:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl12.xls
shows that all murders committed in while another felony was in progress is a bit less than 2,000.
So apparently a lot of that carnage is NOT being committed by constantly re-released felons.
"We all know how criminals are imprisoned with short sentences, released, commit more crimes, imprisoned again, released again, and so on. If violent criminals never saw the light of day again, that would seriously reduce repeat offenses."
ReplyDeleteIndefinite detention is illegal, and costly, and it has to be proportionate to crimes - and there are few where that is the case.
Beyond that, there is no evidence that longer detention is a cure for recidivism. It is consistently conservatives with their 'common sense' approach which goes with what they think SHOULD work instead of what DOES work.
The conservative point of view sees only one solution - punishment and more punishment.
Punishment is relatively ineffective compared to other options, and it is consistently more costly for that limited result than other options.
A less emotional approach looks at the causes of crime, and looks at what ACTUALLY works to reduce repeat offending by objective measurement of improvement and by understanding what leads to criminal behavior in the first place, so it can be reduced.
Scholarly articles for crime deterrence theory
The economics of crime deterrence: a survey of theory … - Cameron - Cited by 271
… A MODEL OF GENERAL DETERRENCE: THEORY … - Nagin - Cited by 183
Does punishment deter crime? -
That answer is not more incarceration or more punishment.
Scholarly articles for social learning theory and crime
Social learning and social structure: A general theory of … - Akers - Cited by 630
Deviant behavior: A social learning approach - Akers - Cited by 1335
A social learning theory analysis of computer crime … - Skinner - Cited by 111
Incarceration and punishment are emotional responses. They appeal to the emotional desire among conservatives that is essentially vengeful rather than driven by a desire for justice.
It is a matter of reparative justice / restorative justice which DOES focus on reducing repeat offending, versus retributive justice, the eye for an eye, which does not.
The idea that we just lock up more people for longer is stupid. It might feel good to those who want retribution.
But if THAT worked, we'd be the safest place on earth. Clearly it doesn't work.
DoC said,
ReplyDeleteThis table:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl10.xls
Shows that over half of all murders committed in the U.S. are committed by persons known to the victim.
And exactly what does that have to do with recidivism?
This table:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl12.xls
shows that all murders committed in while another felony was in progress is a bit less than 2,000.
So apparently a lot of that carnage is NOT being committed by constantly re-released felons.
This has nothing to do with recidivism, these stats all have to do with the crime that was committed, not the prior felony status of the one committing the crime.....
And Old commie if you want a real eye opener on recidivism go take a look at page 12 of this little report....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/ARB_FY0506_Outcome_Evaluation_Report.pdf
Of the tracked recidivists 60.7% will return to prison in the first year after release....... from their first time in prison.
I'm not sure what Thomas's point is here, but my question regarded recidivists having rights under the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, convicted people also have rights under the bill of rights.
The real issue is whether the term "the people" only applies to the law abiding--it does not.
I'm not sure what Thomas's point is here, but my question regarded recidivists having rights under the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that DoC post had nothing to do with Recidivism.......
He posts that you might know you attacker, therefore the are not recidivists.
Another of his links shows that 2000 murders were committed while another felony was in progress...... has anything to do with recidivism.....
I mean really why do you let him post.....
One of my concerns is what I like to call the "hidden criminals." Those are all the folks who haven't yet been caught at whatever it is they do. They pretend to be law-abiding and blend in with the rest, but they're really like little time-bombs waiting to go off.
ReplyDeleteThey love Constitutional Carry and all the other examples of laxity.
Tommy, Tommy, Tommy:
ReplyDeleteWell, geez, you might have a point. Of course the report does say something about the murders being committed during the commission of a felony. Aren't most felons ineligible to own teh gunz? Wouldn't their having a weapon constitute a felony? I'm sure you'll go do some heavy lifting to figure that out.
Why do they let me post here? For the same reason they let you comment.