The fairness of multiple charges / enhanced sentencing

But the point is, what if the man had been innocent of those more serious crimes? All the prosecutor needs to do is find one single law that the defendant broke (and there are plenty of laws on the books to choose from) and then the judge can use his sentencing discretion to punish the defendant for crimes the jury never found the defendant guilty of. This basically circumvents the whole point of a jury. The whole point of the law is to limit how much power the judiciary has, because otherwise they are basically given absolute powers. It's about checks and balances, and protecting the rights of the accused. Otherwise, why even have a jury?

Often times when unethical prosecutors are trying to go after a suspect without enough evidence to convict, they will wait for that person to make the tiniest little legal slip up that they can get them convicted on, then make them look as bad as possible and hope the judge will hand out a disproportionately long sentence, basically bypassing the need of the jury to convict them on the serious charges. The disturbing thing is that the ones being charged often are not even actually guilty of the charge they were convicted of. In the world of finance, for example, the prosecutor can try to find something that appears to be unethical behavior, then try to spin it off as a violation of some law, stretching the meaning of semi-ambiguous language in the statutes. There are numerous examples of this having happened. This is a big potential problem with discretionary sentencing, when minor crimes carry the potential of long sentences.

It is coming to the point now that there are so many criminal laws that the law is not even much of a limitation to a prosecutor and judge any longer. They basically have free reign, and can find some law to fit whatever they want to do. This is a concerning trend.

 

The example given is clearly "criminal felony evading arrest". But, where the driver obeyed all traffic signals, wasn't speeding and merely pulled over when they believed safe to do so, and once stopped obeyed the officer; the charge at most should be traffic misdemeanor "eluding arrest" and IMO not even "eluding should be charged unless the driver was clearing trying to "lose" the patrol car.

Unfortunately many officers are not even aware(at least here in Texas) that there are two offenses they can chose from. I make this claim after reviewing our County Dockets where I found less than 1% of the time "eluding" versus "evading" being charged. The implications for the driver are huge. Unless the driver was endangering other drivers or endangering the officer and failed to obey the speed limit by driving over 10 miles per hour above the posted limit, ignored traffic signals; evading arrest should not be the correct violation charged.

 

Do you think it should be a felony to "evade arrest" ?
It seems sort of a violation of natural rights, and I do not like the principle of the concept. What if there is some sort of emergency situation and the driver has good reason to evade the car trying to pull them over?
I think laws should be about right and wrong, not the government trying to control people through threat of excessive punishment.
Guess I'm a little more Libertarian than "Conservative".

 

Interesting subject that has been debated for some time.

Malum prohibitum: conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself

Malum in se: conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct

Most people don't stop to think that crime would dramatically drop if we removed ignorant or inappropriate laws from the system.

 

It's not just an issue of overlapping charges for the same crime. To show you what I mean, here's another example:

A man has been arrested and charged with 43 counts arising from the possession of methamphetamines, and illegal possession of weapons and gunpowder, Prosecutor Andrew C. Carey announced. John Butterfield, 55, was arrested at his home on Sept. 11, 2013.

Investigator Joseph Celentano and members of the of the task force developed information to secure a warrant to search Butterfield’s home, which is located in a quiet suburban neighborhood in Edison.

During the search, police uncovered 31 weapons, including shotguns, handguns, rifles and two silencers. In addition, police found 78 grams of methamphetamines, and an undetermined amount of gunpowder.

Butterfield was charged with possession of methamphetamines, possession with intent to distribute, possession of more than ½ ounce of the controlled dangerous substance, possession within a school zone and possession within 500 feet of a public library.

He also was charged with violating a law that prohibits convicted felons from owning weapons and was charged with 31 counts of unlawful possession of each of the weapons.

In addition, Butterfield was charged with two counts of possessing the silencers, which are prohibited devices in New Jersey, and three counts of possessing hollow-point bullets.

He also was charged with risking widespread damage or injury by possessing the gunpowder. The amount of gun powder has yet to be determined, but allegedly was significant enough to cause concern for the surrounding residential area.

http://njtoday.net/2013/09/12/new-brunswick-man-arrested-for-illegal-drug-weapons-gunpowder/ ​

Charged with 43 counts. Do you really think someone should spend 30+ years of their life in prison just for possessing things? This man did not hurt anyone.

And I doubt there was really a "dangerous amount" of gunpowder. They were probably just looking for anything extra they could charge him with. It's not uncommon for gun enthusiasts to have two or three 500g canisters of gunpowder.

As for being a past 'convicted felon', all sorts of things are classified as felonies now, so this doesn't necessarily mean he was a bad man. Most of the things this man is being charged here are also considered felonies. It's not like he ever committed robbery or something like that.

 

So? I don't see a problem with this at all. He SHOULD get charged with all of those things. Do you know how dangerous "meth labs" are? YES, if he is cooking meth, then he is a very bad man. Sorry.

 

And how long do you think that man should spend in prison? Because with all those 43 charges, this man could be sentenced to several lifetimes of prison. Is that what you think he deserves?

Who said anything about "meth labs" ? That man did not have a meth lab. Just a little bit of drugs.
Everything else he had was not really that uncommon. My grandfather probably had more guns/ammunition than this man. New Jersey just happens to have really harsh gun laws.

 

Yes, I do. People like this person are the REASON why the rest of us honest citizens face such scrutiny when it comes to practicing our 2nd amendment right!

Again, I have to say, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime!!! I don't have much empathy or sympathy for criminals . . .

 

The issues of mulitple charges and enhanced sentencing are two separate issues.

The reasonable application of multiple charges makes pragamatic sense. All of the charges can be prosecuted independently or they can be addressed in a single case. Assuming conviction on multiple counts only the most severe offense should be considered during sentencing and all other sentences would run concurrent to the longest sentence. The stacking of sentences on on top of the other (consecutive sentencing) should be prohibited.

For example an armed bank robber coud also commit assault and battery by merely shoving a person out of the way. The armed bank robbery might warrant a 15-year sentence while the simple assault and battery would warrant a 2-year sentence. The two sentences should run concurrently and only the 15 year sentence would be imposed.

Enhanced sentencing should only be allowed when the "act" creates a greater threat to society.

For example simple robbery is much less threatening to society than armed robbery. On the flip side it never made sense to have "enhanced sentencing" related to crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine because there was no difference in the actual use of the drug (and in fact the use of either doesn't represent any threat to society at all because it's a victimless crime).

In both cases of "multiple charges" and "enhanced sentencing" there needs to be pragmatic limitions but unfortunately those writing the laws are typically far more concerned with re-election than doing what's right for America. Because of that I would highly recommend that "mandatory sentencing" laws should all be repealed and we should let the Court's decide the sentencing based upon the specifics of each case. Judges do not work in a vacuum and they're very familiar with the sentencing precedents established by the courts. Get the elected politicans out of the sentencing process because they don't have a clue about what they're doing.

 

The possession of methamphetamines doesn't represent a threat to society per se but the illegal possession of weapons and gunpowder represents a very serious threat to society. The question for the court (not lawmakers) is how much of a threat to society did this man actually represent with his illegal firearms and gunpowder and the sentencing needs to address that threat. The sentencing should be appropriate based upon the threat because, assuming conviction, we need to ensure that he doesn't re-enter society while he still represents a serious threat to it.

 

Honest, law-abiding, citizens don't have illegal firearms or significant quantities of black powder and this guy's actions do not generate additional scrutiny of the 2nd Amendment rights of honest Americans.

Of course there are many "pro-gun" advocates (e.g. the NRA) that are almost in the same boat as this nutcase because they misinterpret the 2nd Amendment protections and some of their arguments are downright silly and self-contradictory.

 

Well, I'm glad there is an NRA to help fight for our rights. They are an important and powerful organization.

 

That's not true. Those same weapons would be perfectly legal in other States. Often it is not even a matter of whether the weapon is illegal but whether the owner bothered to obtain a permit for it.

I do not own any guns myself, but I have several family members who have caches of weapons. I would hardly say they are a "threat to society". Many gun enthusiasts keep large collections of guns, not all of them are always 100% legal. I do not see how you can call these people dangerous. Many of them are even former police officers or war veterans. My grandfather probably had more gunpowder than this man in the story, though he had to get rid of it for insurance purposes. His home insurance company was going to charge him a large hefty surcharge.

 

And Shiva_TD, I noticed you call yourself a "Libertarian" in your profile.

 

I agree with that much. Just owning a certain type or style of weapon should not make one a criminal. That is silly. However, if they commit a crime with their weapon (s), then I don't have a problem with them facing multiple charges. I don't feel any pity for them whatsoever.

 

The 10th Amendment establishes that a state can have laws different from other states so long as those laws don't violate the US Constitution. This is true with many commodities from automobiles to firearms. It is the responsibility of the resident of the state to comply with the laws of the state and a person that doesn't is a criminal. The resident of a state is responsible for knowing the laws that affect them and complying with the law.

Firearms and/or explosives in the hands of a criminal represents a serious threat to society. That doesn't imply the criminal will use the firearms and/or explosives for nefarious purposes but the threat that they might exists nonetheless.

Firearms (and explosives) are inherently very dangerous even in the hands of law abiding citizens because of their potental for causing serious injury or death. Even in the hands of a trained professional, such as a law enforcement officer, a firearm represents a threat to society as can be exemplified by the killing of unarmed civilians by mistake (e.g. a person reaching for their cell phone being killed by mistake).

 

It did not always used to be that way. There was a time when society made no attempt to "keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys". Robbers simply got a prison sentence and then were released. Murderers were hanged. There was a time when dynamite was on the shelves in mining and outfitting supply stores. The government has just passed more and more laws over the years restricting everything.

 

Armed robbery is a violent crime. I don't feel sympathy for anybody willing to make someone think they are about to be killed in order to get money from them.

 

I hate people making comments that lead to off-topic discussions, but I can't just let this one go.

Bank robberies on the rise in bad economy
In tough economic times, desperate people turn to bank robbery
Man robbed bank to pay rent

And what about a man who has something valuable stolen from him, and believes he knows the man responsible, but the police refuse to do anything about it? I'm not saying it is right, but in that case we could at least sympathize with the man who uses force to try to take back what is his.

It's not always a black and white situation (though usually it is).

 

It doesn't matter. That is a very lame excuse. In fact, that is exactly what OJ Simpson did . . .

- - - Updated - - -

People do not need to rob banks to pay their rent. That is why we have social services support systems in place. If you REALLY cannot afford to pay your rent, you can get government assistance.

This is a good reason to support raising minimum wage too. More people would be able to pay their rents if they made a living wage.

 

There was a time in human history when mankind lived in absolute anarchy, without any government, where the Law of the Jungle prevailed under the principle of Might Makes Right but I doubt that many would choose to live in such a society.

 

I only want to repeal back the laws by 100 years. I doubt the laws in 1915 could be described as "Anarchy".
Prohibition marked the start of all the restrictive laws in the Twentieth Century. This caused a huge rise in organized crime, which in turn led to the passage of national gun control laws in America. Next there was the Great Depression, which set the precedent for higher levels of control by the national government (the private possession of gold was even banned in the U.S. from 1933 to 1974). Then came the whole "war on drugs", which led to frequent invasions of people's privacy and mass incarceration. And finally the whole "war on terror" which led to additional restrictions, and virtual loss of any privacy.

 

Here is a great example of unfair multiple charges:
A man robs a bank with a fake bomb . For that he was charged on nine felony counts including aggravated assault, robbery, threatening to use a weapon of mass destruction, and on top of all that, he was also charged with possessing a facsimile weapon of mass destruction.

The man was not even carrying a real weapon with him.

Now no one is saying this man is not guilty, but the prosecutor will basically be able to coerce him into pleading guilty to whatever charges they want, with all these charges hanging over him, any one of which alone could potentially carry a 15-20 year sentence.

This is not rule of law working in action, the prosecutor and judge have all the power under this type of system.

 

Your concern is the prosecutor and judge have power over a guy who robbed a bank? I dunno. If the guy goes away for life... I just don't see the problem.



​

 

Enhanced sentencing is trickery used by prosecutors to insure more notches on their belts. Most have political ambitions and simply want to show the elderly voting base how safe they are keeping us. What they are creating is a Felon class who can no longer support their families, get jobs, and end up back in jail because jail will feed them and give them free medical care.