Mandatory Sentencing

Hey, MoFos. I don't know exactly how many people know about it, but New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress (31) accidentally shot himself in the leg at a New York City night club last week. He's going to be charged with having unlicensed possession of a concealed, loaded weapon in a public place and will more than likely spend a minimum of 3.5 years in prison. His license for the gun was expired and he was still carrying the gun around, so that was pretty dumb. He also accidentally shot himself in the leg, so that was even more dumb.

But Plaxico Burress isn't a bad dude. Players in the National Football League, especially recently, have been the target of gun-related violence in a majorly inordinate proportion compared to the public at large. Off the top of my head, I can think of 3 players who have been shot in the past year alone (2 died, 1 lost a leg). And Plaxico's teammate, Steve Smith, was held up at gunpoint a few nights prior to the Burress incident. Athletes are, on the surface, relatively easy targets for muggings because they typically carry wads of cash or expensive electronics or whatever around.

Burress wasn't planning on shooting anyone, he was carrying the gun for protection. He had no intent to hurt anybody, he was carrying it to defend himself. NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg has called for Burress to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, in order to set an example of him. This could result in 5 or more years of jail time.

I understand why there are strict gun laws, especially in New York City, but I am a little ticked off about this case. If there was no intent to do anyone harm and no one was hurt, why does Plaxico Burress now have to lose more than 3 years of his life? Because he made a stupid mistake?

The bigger issue here, I think, is the title of this thread. The whole idea of mandatory sentences for crimes is ridiculous. Every situation is different and if someone who makes a mistake that didn't result in anyone being harmed is sent to jail for 3+ years, I just don't know what to say to that. Plaxico Burress had no intent to harm anybody. Why isn't intent a bigger deal?

Mandatory sentencing is so primitive to me that I'm ashamed to live in a place where it's actually upheld. Of course there should be judicial discretion in every single case because every single case is different. Of course some crimes are incrementally more egregious than others, even if they fall under the same charge.

So, yeah, Plaxico Burress is a little stupid, but the system is even more stupid.

For once, I completely agree with you. The dude is getting the **** end, for sure.

__________________

For once? Do we have a checkered history of major disagreements that I'm not aware of? I dunno, I think I agree with a lot of the things you say.

I just don't like David Lynch all that much.

Mandatory sentences are absolute crap. They flood our prison systems, waste our taxes, and drain our resources. Excellent idea. Why didn't we do this sooner?!

Prison house of nations right here in the good old of USA.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Nah, we just bust balls. I think you're the bee's knees, really.

Mandatory Sentences are ridiculous as each case is different. I dont know about the States system too much but if his case was in my jurisdiction (not saying i own it!) especially in fron of some of the judges ive seen he probably would get a one year suspended sentence. 3 years seems rather much.

__________________
Comment is free but facts are sacred

I do not believe in Mandatory sentencing at all as for anyone having guns, they should all be banned

Then why carry a loaded gun because in the end someone will get hurt

everyone who carries a loaded gun could say "they had no intention of hurting anyone" He is lucky it didn't fall out and shot someone else, then what????

As you can see I hate guns just stop making them and melt all the ones we have in the world

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Yea, I don't buy any statement of "no intention of hurting anyone" either when fire arems are involved. I mean, a gun is designed to kill/injury. That's pretty obvious. So if you're carrying one you're going to have *some* intention to hurt someone with it even if it's just the intention to hurt people that try and hurt you. It's still an intention.

Still think the mandatory sentence is crap, though.

I don't agree with mandatory minimum sentencing.

I also don't like the three strikes and you're out law.

As for you assessment that he's not a bad dude, read this article by Gary Myers.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/fo...ants_to_t.html

I've had a concealed weapons permit in Washington State.

Although the laws are different in New York, I assume you are not allowed to have a weapon where they serve alcohol.

So whether or not had a permit, he shouldn't have had in a club.

I understand the gun was a Glock .40.

Unless they improved the safety, you wouldn't want a chamber round in that model.

It has a pull trigger safety, which really isn't a safety at all.

But I think you had an alternative reason for your post.

I think you're a Giants' fan concerned about how depth at wide receiver is going to effect your chances as repeating as Super Bowl Champions.

In closing, it's to bad he didn't shoot himself in the balls.

He could have a Darwin Award along with his Championship Ring.

@ Loner's post.

[Mack's Overarching Generalities]

mandatory sentencing is an oddity. they did it first to protect citizens (of all types and backgrounds) from subjective judicial decisionmaking, which, at the time, always came down in much the same manner as this case: too harshly on "certain people," and very leniently on others - for same crime, mind you.

So. We already know that judicial subjectivity is not always a good thing.

Mandatory sentencing was a way to arm-twist judges into being fair across the board, regardless of the wealth, color, sex, etc. of the defendant.

But youre right. Now it seems to do more harm than good.

Why is that?

Because all the legislators did was define certain types of crime as more egregious, and requiring of a more stringent "mandatory sentence."

In other words: selling a little dope may get you "mandatorily" far more time in jail than say.......embezzling a few million. (I havent really checked, so this may in fact, be an inaccurate about NY law. The general point is still correct.)

And so now, even WITH the supposed protection of the objectivity of "mandatory sentencing," you've got a lopsided prison populace.

Here's the real question: who is deciding that one crime is worse than the other (from a mandatory sentencing perspective), and are their motives right, or are they letting themselves off for crime, while simultaneously holding others accountable?

Oh Government. You thought you could outsmart discrimination with forced objectivity. Youd didnt know that your "objective sentencing laws" were still subjectively selected. You didnt know you were so wrong.

[/Mack's Overarching Generalities]

All that said, I've yet to see a sentencing judge without the power of leniency. More likely s/he will be too afraid to cross Bloomberg's agenda. And to be honest, Bloomberg is probably really on a high horse crusade with an anti-GUN lobby. (Which he might need the diversion, because wasnt he in some kind of trouble?)

This dude is simple enough to carry one and be made a public example.

On a side note, last I checked in Indiana, you could carry a loaded concealed gun in your purse. I know because one of the attorneys I worked with DID. She was kind of scary, though.

__________________
something witty goes here......

I did draft him in the third round of our MoFo fantasy football draft, but I don't really like the Giants and I tried not to let that cloud my judgment. My post really was trying to give you folks an example of why mandatory sentences are stupid. I still don't think Burress is a "bad guy" or anything and I definitely don't think he should be facing 3+ years in prison.

And for you other MoFos upthread, I hate guns, too. But I can understand why Plaxico Burress was carrying one. I'm not saying he was doing the right thing, but he doesn't deserve all that jail time for shooting himself in the leg. I'm also glad he didn't shoot himself in the balls, Loner, because I'm sure he's embarrassed enough and he's still a human being and all, ya know?

And, as a side note and at the risk of sounding amazingly lame, I'll also say I hate the idea of the Darwin Awards, because no matter how stupid someone is, I have a hard time finding the death of a living, breathing human being funny. I actually feel pretty guilty laughing about stuff like that, because, really, anybody can make a dumb mistake or have a momentary and catastrophic lapse of judgment, right? I kinda liked that movie about the awards with Joseph Fiennes and Winona Ryder, for some reason, even though everybody else who saw it seemed to hate it.

He'd have to die in order to be nominated for a Darwin. I don't know if he has children or not, but you also have to be childless.