Submitted by washingtonpost t3_11oo91n in washingtondc
Deanocracy t1_jbu8j75 wrote
Reply to comment by Brickleberried in 5 archaic D.C. laws still technically on the books after crime bill is nixed by washingtonpost
No… they just don’t believe the proposed bill helps reduce crime.
Pretty easy to understand unless your goal is to mischaracterize their position.
acdha t1_jbu9alb wrote
When they knowingly make false statements about the bill, it’s pretty clear what their goal is. The question is just when they’ll come out and actually say it.
Deanocracy t1_jbua69p wrote
“They” did huh.
acdha t1_jbuchph wrote
Hey, now’s your chance to show that critics of the bill are well informed. You could point to something specific and data supporting your claim that it’ll make crime worse.
Deanocracy t1_jbudq0b wrote
Well for example USAO Graves pointed to significant flaws in the handling of firearms in the bill which would lead to less prosecution of felons with guns.
The recidivism rate of that group is higher (ie they commit lots of crime) so… that’s one point.
https://www.scribd.com/document/607771678/RCCA-USA-Graves-Letter-Re-Pinto-Amendment-11-15-22
RSquared t1_jbw3mif wrote
Possession was reduced because it's a possession crime, not a violent one:
> One change that’s drawn outsized attention is a reduction in the maximum penalty for being a “felon in possession”—that is, possessing a gun when you have a prior felony conviction. The RCCA drops the max for the charge from 15 years to four, for several reasons. First, being a felon in possession is not a crime of violence. It applies when an individual merely owns a gun, even if it’s sitting unused in their closet. If they ever carry or use it, the penalties shoot up dramatically. Second, no court hands down a 15-year sentence for possession alone, because it’s wildly disproportionate to the offense; the vast majority of people are sentenced to far less than four years.
Deanocracy t1_jbxbqvn wrote
Also..
the vast majority of people are sentenced to far less than four years.
Why?
Why are so many arguments for this bill containing passing reference to a serious issue with our justice system as if thats the ok state of affairs.
Its entirely undemocratic. If I asked this city what the sentence should be for a violent felon who has a gun on them illegally the answer wouldnt be “the vast majority should be sentenced to far less than 4 years”
Its a scandal whats happening in our courts and its a scandal that people are silent on it.
While seemingly well aware of the state of the courts when discussibg the reductions in sentences proposed in this bill.
Deanocracy t1_jbx3ooe wrote
It’s better when you understand the arguments being presented… avoids you presenting counter arguments to straw men created for you by the media and pundits.
My comment made no mention to Graves being against the terms proposed for felons with a gun.
Read my link… he was against the classification of unauthorized which would make it easier for criminals to legally own a gun.
Superb_Distance_9190 t1_jc1euan wrote
They should be sentenced to far more than 4! High Max penalties are there for a reason. It’s on the judge to handout proper sentences.
DrunkWoodchuck t1_jbu8zgn wrote
The point of the proposed bill wasn’t to reduce crime! Pretty easy to understand unless your goal is to mischaracterize the bill’s position…
Deanocracy t1_jbua94s wrote
the point of the proposed bill wasn’t to reduce crime!
On this we are in complete agreement
cptjeff t1_jbvyi2j wrote
> The point of the proposed bill wasn’t to reduce crime!
Yes, that was very clear.
SchokoKipferl t1_jbxmwk5 wrote
Very true. The bill did absolutely nothing to address the root causes and socioeconomic issues.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments