Control Criminals Not Guns

[WhiteFeather]

Williams in the last paragraph gives part of the solution by holding the parole boards liable for their early release of criminals, but it only half of the problem we have to also have to hold the District Attorneys and Judges as well for the plea bargaining of criminals just to make their jobs easier. The other legal issue that needs to be address is the concurrent sentencing procedure allowed in the law.

If we as “gun owners” and members of PAFOA can shift and keep the debate on this liability subject with the legislator in Harrisburg IT WILL END GUN CONTROL debates in PA and make everyone in the commonwealth safer.

As proof of this statement PLEASE read this PA Firearms Laws & PA Commission on Sentencing Report

http://acslpa.org/n-legislative/pa_firearms_laws.htm




Control Criminals Not Guns

Every time there's a highly publicized shooting, out go the cries for stricter gun control laws, and it was no different with the recent murder of Philadelphia Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, in a letter to the state congressional delegation demanding reenactment of the federal assault weapon ban, said, "Passing this legislation will go a long way to protecting those who put their lives on the line every day for us. … There is no excuse to do otherwise."

Gun control laws will not protect us from murderers. We need protection from the criminal justice system politicians have created. Let's look at it.

According to former Philly cop Michael P. Tremoglie's article "Who freed the cop-killers?" for the Philadelphia Daily News (5/8/08), all three murder suspects had extensive criminal records. Levon Warner was sentenced in 1997 to seven and a half to 15 years for robbery, one to five years for possessing an instrument of crime and five to 10 for criminal conspiracy. Howard Cain was convicted in 1996 on four counts of robbery and sentenced to five to 10 years on each count. Eric Floyd was sentenced to five to 10 years in 1995 for robbery, rearrested in 1999 for parole violation and later convicted in 2001 for two robberies. If these criminals had not been released from prison, long before they served out their sentences, officer Liczbinski would be alive today. So what's responsible for his death: guns or a prison and parole system that released these three criminals? Tremoglie cites other examples of criminals, with convictions for violent crimes ranging from robbery and assault to murder, who were paroled and later murdered police officers.

A New York Times study (4/28/06) of the city's 1,662 murders in 2003-2005 found that 90 percent of the murderers had criminal records. A Massachusetts study reported that on average, homicide offenders had been arraigned for nine prior offenses. John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that in 1988 in the 75 largest counties in the U.S., over 89 percent of adult murderers had a criminal record as an adult.

A few days after the murder of Liczbinski, Governor Rendell told a news conference, attended by state elected officials and top law enforcement officials, "The time has come for politicians to decide. You have to decide whether you're on their side -- the men and women who wear blue -- or whether you're on the side of the gun lobby." Instead of saying "whether you're on the side of the gun lobby," Rendell should have said "whether you're on the side of the criminal and the courts, prosecutors, prisons and parole boards that cut soft deals with criminals and release them to prey upon police officers and law-abiding citizens."

If there is one clear basic function of government, it's to protect citizens from criminals. When government failure becomes so apparent, as it is in the murder of a police officer, officials seek scapegoats and very often it's the National Rifle Association and others who seek to protect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We hear calls for stricter gun control laws when what is really needed is more control over criminals.

There are many third-party liability laws. I think they ought to be applied to members of parole boards who release criminals who turn around and commit violent crimes. As it stands now, people on parole boards who release criminals bear no cost of their decisions. I bet that if members of parole boards were held liable or forced to serve the balance of the sentence of a parolee who goes out and commits more crime, they would pay more attention to the welfare of the community rather than the welfare of a criminal. You say, "Williams, under those conditions, who'd serve on a parole board?" There's something to be said about that.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/W...inals_not_guns

[ChamberedRound]

Forget holding the parole boards responsible, take it out of their hands altogether:

Any first-time offender gets a chance at parole if their sentence allows, but on a 2nd offense, they serve out the remainder of their first sentence and their 2nd sentence WITH NO CHANCE OF PAROLE.

Not a "3 strikes and you're out" policy, but similar. It still gives the convicted a chance for parole, and to serve out their term(s) without being given a life sentence, but if they choose to be a repeat offender they will serve it all.

[RoyJackson]

And, in cases of murder using a weapon (note, I did not say firearm), the death penalty to be carried out within 1 year.

Within a few years, we wouldn't have a crime problem, now would we?

[theshadow]

Forget holding the parole boards responsible, take it out of their hands altogether:

Any first-time offender gets a chance at parole if their sentence allows, but on a 2nd offense, they serve out the remainder of their first sentence and their 2nd sentence WITH NO CHANCE OF PAROLE.

Not a "3 strikes and you're out" policy, but similar. It still gives the convicted a chance for parole, and to serve out their term(s) without being given a life sentence, but if they choose to be a repeat offender they will serve it all.

Sorry CR, while I love the idea, it will never fly. Criminal and criminal friendly politicians like Rendell, and Nutter gain power by leveraging Fear uncertainty and doubt. As such, any talk of enforcing existing laws, revoking pleas, and tougher sentencing will quickly be brushed away with smoke and mirrors while making the proposer look like a racist, or other political slight of hand maneuver.

Yes, I'm jaded, I know it, and I think most people are fed up with this type politics.

[pex]

And, in cases of murder using a weapon (note, I did not say firearm), the death penalty to be carried out within 1 year.

Within a few years, we wouldn't have a crime problem, now would we?

I'm not sure I understand what makes murder less heinous if done without a weapon.

(I guess I've never understood the nature of 'murder' either since it's essentially a lack of respect for life coupled with a thought-crime. Such a precedent has much implication on the rest of the way we base our criminal system...)

Suppose you're carrying out the death penalty within a year for all murder: are you bringing back the right to a speedy trial? What if the appellee's side fails to, in timeliness, or with purpose, bring forth proper information pursuant to one's innocence, or if 'speediness of trial' is so quick there's no time for a proper procedure?

Are we also going to teach people to think critically and not be sheeple, and educate them on the law throughout their schooling?