Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LiveToRide
. . .
I don't think your argument for how courts and juries handle things is satisfactory. Courts and juries have been doing a miserable job keeping violent offenders where they belong.
|
That's debatable. The U.S. has more people incarcerated than any other Western industrialized nation. Sentences are getting ever longer and more draconian; almost all states have recidivist offender statutes, and many also have a "three strikes" scheme in place.
The Legislature, not the court or the jury, fixes what the sentence should be for any particular crime. The jury's task is to give a verdict on the evidence. A huge percentage of criminal charges are resolved before trial, so whatever happens in those instances is largely the responsibility of the prosecutor, in the exercise of executive discretion. Of those case that do go to trial, an overwhelming majority result in conviction. The court imposes sentence, but within the range specified by the legislative branch. Otherwise, the administration of the sentence is up to the corrections department, an arm of the executive branch.
In any case, the point I was making in referring to the courts and juries wasn't about making sure violent criminals stay in jail. My point concerned the courts' and juries' already-existing familiarity with issues of
self-defense -- i.e., when a citizen is on trial for responding with force, what force is the citizen entitled to use in a confrontation? Mechanisms are already in place (e.g., jury instructions) to allow the trier of fact to determine when someone SHOULDN'T be adjudged a criminal, because they acted in self-defense. The new statute muddies the waters somewhat, however, by altering the traditional common law understanding of self-defense conduct.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LiveToRide
Hey maddog, could you give me your definition of "gun nut" please?
|
Well, I was being a little facetious/hyperbolic. Nonetheless, I find this kind of expression alarming:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LiveToRide
If more responsible people carried weapons, there would be less violent crime. Give the common thug something to think about. Is this seemingly "good" potential victim packing? The fact that it's a possibility should give them pause.
|
Maybe it *should* but in my experience, it doesn't. When people are "packing," they tend to USE those guns. Statutes like this one make people feel more "justified" in resorting to the guns they're carrying. I've seen it so many, many, many times, that guns are used impulsively, with deadly consequences, and often tragic results for the citizen-user, who then must face a criminal trial.
#406