Its about time to re-think penalties for illegal guns

[CaptainCrunch]

I've been saying for a while that using a gun in a crime should be punished harshly. If its a illegal or unregistered weapon even more so.

I don't know if the length of the sentence matters, for some gang members its a credibility badge to serve a term. I think its the type of punishment. doing 5 years in a prison isn't something that they are afraid of.


I've always believed that with violent offenders there should be levels.

The first time, you're locked away, maybe a lighter sentence, lots of educational opportunities and lots of counseling, decent food etc. That second time you commit a violent act or gang related act. You're breaking rocks in the arctic for a decade at least. 12 hours a day of making gravel out of boulders, and you're eating army rations and sleeping on a army cot. And in your off time, you're either going to school. Or scrubbing the floors with a toothbrush.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Actually, I think they are about having a set punishment for crimes that would cause one to rethink breaking the law, and stop the shootings that are reaching epidemic levels in Toronto.

Mandatory minimums and harsher sentencing can work but also have pitfalls. Another aspect to them is to expedite the legal and sentencing process.

I've never been a huge fan because it does take discretion out of sentencing for considering circumstances, etc.

At some point sentencing and punishment have to operate in conjunction with control legislation.

Ie. If a person commits a crime using a firearm, knowing the difficulty involved in acquiring said firearm could indicate premeditation and then potentially determine the risk level of the individual in regards to sentencing.

Incarceration is expensive, and more people in jail isnt really an end we should be aspiring to, but at the same time when violent crimes are becoming more prevalent then the Judicial system has to adapt to that as well and their tools to do so are limited.

So harsher punishments might be warranted, they have shown to have limited effectiveness in deterring crime, but some might be better than none, we cant fall into the 'Perfectionist Fallacy' where if it doesnt solve the problem entirely its not worth doing at all.

Especially when it comes to guns. Someone has gone out and acquired a weapon for a purpose and executed that purpose. That should be dealt with harshly.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...ns-on-carding/

Yes, violating civil liberties makes law enforcement easier.

I think that has always been the case.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Locke

Mandatory minimums and harsher sentencing can work but also have pitfalls. Another aspect to them is to expedite the legal and sentencing process.

I've never been a huge fan because it does take discretion out of sentencing for considering circumstances, etc.

At some point sentencing and punishment have to operate in conjunction with control legislation.

Ie. If a person commits a crime using a firearm, knowing the difficulty involved in acquiring said firearm could indicate premeditation and then potentially determine the risk level of the individual in regards to sentencing.

Incarceration is expensive, and more people in jail isnt really an end we should be aspiring to, but at the same time when violent crimes are becoming more prevalent then the Judicial system has to adapt to that as well and their tools to do so are limited.

So harsher punishments might be warranted, they have shown to have limited effectiveness in deterring crime, but some might be better than none, we cant fall into the 'Perfectionist Fallacy' where if it doesnt solve the problem entirely its not worth doing at all.

Especially when it comes to guns. Someone has gone out and acquired a weapon for a purpose and executed that purpose. That should be dealt with harshly.

I agree with this part. So for in the instance of what's happening in Toronto, could we not determine that carrying illegal handguns, with no liscencing or ties to the system, indicate premeditation to commit a crime? The act of doing so is already a crime(s).

Hard problem to tackle. I'm not a fan of carding, but the Toronto police are adamant it's a tool that helps them intervene before larger crimes are committed.

[Envitro]

I don't know what the right answer is, but something needs to be done.

These gang members are free to carry guns around with little to no consequence.

Myself, and others, that are competition shooters needs to follow the letter of the law to the T, or we face up to two years in jail automatically. We don't go before a judge, and we get a summary conviction for a paperwork or administrative crime (i.e. forgot a piece of paper, or it fell out of my bag, etc. while to and from the range). Nothing that ever endangered anyone, just a piece of paper like the registration (they won't accept a digital copy like a backup on your phone).

On the one hand, we're happy to comply with whatever laws exist in order for us to keep enjoying our sport. On the other hand we look at some of these cases that involve ILLEGAL handguns and ILLEGAL possession and use, and you shake your head in disbelief.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I've always advocated to tougher laws and sentencing for the use of firearms in the commission of a crime. If someone is carrying, maybe they're doing so because their job is inherently dangerous and needs it for protection (i.e. drug dealer), even if their job is illegal. Fine, have a somewhat lighter sentence for that, but still enforce the law. If the same guy shoots or threatens someone with the gun then throw the book at him.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Envitro

I don't know what the right answer is, but something needs to be done.

These gang members are free to carry guns around with little to no consequence.

Myself, and others, that are competition shooters needs to follow the letter of the law to the T, or we face up to two years in jail automatically. We don't go before a judge, and we get a summary conviction for a paperwork or administrative crime (i.e. forgot a piece of paper, or it fell out of my bag, etc.). Nothing that ever endangered anyone, just a piece of paper like the registration (they won't accept a digital copy like a backup on your phone).

On the one hand, we're happy to comply with whatever laws exist in order for us to keep enjoying our sport. On the other hand we look at some of these cases that involve ILLEGAL handguns and ILLEGAL possession and use, and you shake your head in disbelief.

I don't know what the right answer is, but I've always advocated to tougher laws and sentencing for the use of firearms in the commission of a crime. If someone is carrying, maybe they're doing so because their job is inherently dangerous and needs it for protection (i.e. drug dealer), even if their job is illegal. Fine, have a somewhat lighter sentence for that, but still enforce the law. If the same guys shoots or threatens someone with the gun then throw the book at him.

Add to this, that when talking turkey about how to tackle the issue, politicians and a certain segment of the population suggest that our handguns need to be banned, firearms should have tighter controls, ect.

Which of course does nothing for the problem, but appears to be "doing something".

[blankall]

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not a fan of minimum sentences, generally. They sound alright in principle, but when you apply them to every single fact pattern in reality they tend to lead to unfair sentences.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Hard problem to tackle. I'm not a fan of carding, but the Toronto police are adamant it's a tool that helps them intervene before larger crimes are committed.

In reality carding is a terrible idea, terrible in practice and without any proven reduction in crime to back it up. It hinders investigations as much as helps them. It's a bad idea at all aspects. I can totally understand why cops want to do it though.

[jayswin]

^^^^^^^

Free intimidation and check ups on minorities. Of course they want that.

[Azure]

Mandatory minimums for victimless crimes are a big reason we have higher crime rates which from the outside looking in seems like are not being solved.

It effectively throws people into prison thereby tearing apart families and wrecking the family structure.

There is a statistic where a very high percentage of people that commit a crime grew up in a home without a father figure, and a high percentage of those fathers were doing time.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Yeah, on a micro level when I hear about some senseless gun-related gang crime, my immediate reaction is hoping for some severe sentence so I'd be in favour of a high mandatory minimum.

But then that's hypocritical of me when I feel like there should be heavy emphasis on rehabilitation in the justice system and a mandatory minimum goes against that into pure punishment.

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yeah, on a micro level when I hear about some senseless gun-related gang crime, my immediate reaction is hoping for some severe sentence so I'd be in favour of a high mandatory minimum.

But then that's hypocritical of me when I feel like there should be heavy emphasis on rehabilitation in the justice system and a mandatory minimum goes against that into pure punishment.

I'm with you and this describes me to a T.

I'm very much in the same boat, and there is no one solution that will fix the problem.

There also needs to be leniency for a one-time stupid decision, or a way to correct a mistake through education or rehabilitation.

However, with the way things are today, neither of those seem to work.

Extremely lenient judges applying sentences to repeat offenders with excuses like "but he grew up in a bad home", like that is an excuse for being a criminal. At some point you need to get over your ####ty upbringing, and society can be there to help with that. Too often, it's used as an excuse for crimes and there are hardly ever any consequence for the perpetrator because of it.