Indiana Senator Wants To INcrease Minimum Sentencing For Violent Crimes

[yepthatsme]

I have heard this on WIBC and channel 13 about James Merritt pushing to increase the minimum sentencing for violent crimes from 5 to 20 years. This caught my attention and while I can understand why many people would think this is a good idea, I'm afraid that it removes the power from the judicial system to treat each crime individually. This article mentions violent crimes, but I have heard that it might apply to a firearms only crime. If so, it does nothing to deter the brutal Westfield crime and if not, then what would define a violent crime? I think taking the power of sentencing from the courts to decide on each crime individually is the wrong thing to do. I just think that mandatory sentencing cannot properly address all situations and it would be better to leave sentencing decisions up to the courts. If it is the courts that are the problem, then fix the courts, not increase minimum sentencing. Just my

Affidavit: Westfield suspect told friend he killed two women - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

"After a rash of violent home invasions by suspects with violent priors, Merritt says he will push for tougher minimum sentences for violent crimes, from five years to twenty years. He points to the 2010 downtown shooter who wounded nine and got two years in jail. "Not acceptable," Merritt said. "We have got to crack down on violent crime.""

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would say that he needs to start by addressing the prison overpopulation with nonviolent/self-destructive via politically incorrect plants convicts so that he will have someplace to put them. Otherwise, I would like to see how he means to torture several new prisons out of the budget which (according to a friend who is also a state senator) is balanced largely on smoke and mirrors without truly balancing.

 

[Trigger Time]

I look at all the violent crimes in the news lately and the "suspects" and I can think of a couple plans that would help solve the problem. Build a whole city of free section 8 housing in the middle of nowhere and offer free transportation, and no cops. Let them kill each other and not innocents anymore.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I do not know anything about the practical implications of minimum sentencing, but I agree with you that mandatory minimums seems to screw up the system. I don't want the legislature determining guilt or innocence in every day criminal cases and I don't want them determining the sentencing of those found guilty either.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I look at all the violent crimes in the news lately and the "suspects" and I can think of a couple plans that would help solve the problem. Build a whole city of free section 8 housing in the middle of nowhere and offer free transportation, and no cops. Let them kill each other and not innocents anymore.

I thought the plan was to finally finish the wall around the outside of 465.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I do not know anything about the practical implications of minimum sentencing, but I agree with you that mandatory minimums seems to screw up the system. I don't want the legislature determining guilt or innocence in every day criminal cases and I don't want them determining the sentencing of those found guilty either.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer

What is screwing up the system is allowing violent offenders to plea down to lesser charges so they get out in a small fraction of the time they should actually be in prison. The prison overpopulation is, IMO, due to not allowing non-violent offenders to plea down to lesser charges.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I have heard this on WIBC and channel 13 about James Merritt pushing to increase the minimum sentencing for violent crimes from 5 to 20 years.

It is reported that Merritt wishes to increase the current five (5) year firearm used sentencing enhancement (I.C. 35-50-2-11) to twenty (20) years.

Nothing to do with minimum sentences: http://www.jconline.com/article/201...lties-sought-violent-gun-crimes-committed-gun

Here's my question, in the eighteen (18) years that I have been doing what I have been doing, I have yet to see a Prosecuting Attorney (I have been in 37 counties now) seek the five year enhancement for firearm use.

Granted 99.5% of my cases do not involve firearms, heck, even the weapons are mostly clubs, knives (lots of knives in Lafayette), a brick (yes, really), a chunk of concrete, a tree limb, a dog leash, a rope with a padlock on it, inter alia, however I still await a Prosecuting Attorney to use the current five year enhancement.

If the PAs never use it, Senator Merritt, just what do you hope to accomplish???

IC 35-50-2-11 Version a
Firearm used in
commission of offense; separate charge; additional sentence
Note:
This version of section effective until 7-1-2014. See also following version of
this section, effective 7-1-2014.

Sec. 11. (a) As used in this
section, "firearm" has the meaning set forth in IC 35-47-1-5.
(b) As used
in this section, "offense" means:
(1) a felony under IC 35-42 that
resulted in death or serious bodily injury;
(2) kidnapping;
or
(3) criminal confinement as a Class B felony.
(c) The state
may seek, on a page separate from the rest of a charging instrument, to have a
person who allegedly committed an offense sentenced to an additional fixed term
of imprisonment if the

state can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly or
intentionally used a firearm in the commission of the offense.
(d) If the
person was convicted of the offense in a jury trial, the jury shall reconvene to
hear evidence in the enhancement hearing. If the trial was to the court, or the
judgment was entered on a guilty plea, the court alone shall hear evidence in
the enhancement hearing.
(e) If the jury (if the hearing is by jury) or
the court (if the hearing is to the court alone) finds that the state has proved
beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly or intentionally used a
firearm in the commission of the offense, the court may sentence the person to
an additional fixed term of imprisonment of five (5) years.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Here's my question, in the eighteen (18) years that I have been doing what I have been doing, I have yet to see a Prosecuting Attorney (I have been in 37 counties now) seek the five year enhancement for firearm use.

I have two questions:

Do you see this being used as a device of intimidation which would lead people to plea guilty when they are not as a way of getting a survivable sentence as opposed to perhaps not getting out of prison alive with the additional time, much like stacking charges is used already?

How is 'using a firearm in the commission of a crime' defined? It is actually using the firearm, or merely possessing it while doing something illegal?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Do you see this being used as a device of intimidation which would lead people to plea guilty when they are not as a way of getting a survivable sentence as opposed to perhaps not getting out of prison alive with the additional time, much like stacking charges is used already?

No, I have not seen it used . . . at all. Even cases that feature firearms being used, there is no discussion of it. None at all. Not even threatened.

I have never seen I.C. 35-50-2-11 used for Burglary, Robbery, Attempted Murder, Murder, inter alia.

Perhaps in Marion County (where most of the case law is from) but I have yet to see it since 1995.

 

[John Galt]

No, I have not seen it used . . . at all. Even cases that feature firearms being used, there is no discussion of it. None at all. Not even threatened.

I have never seen I.C. 35-50-2-11 used for Burglary, Robbery, Attempted Murder, Murder, inter alia.

Why not? Just curious why a tool like this to hold accountable those that abuse their right to carry a firearm isn't being used, which inevitably gives the anti-gunners cause to go after us innocent peoples firearms.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Why not? Just curious why a tool like this to hold accountable those that abuse their right to carry a firearm isn't being used, which inevitably gives the anti-gunners cause to go after us innocent peoples firearms.

I can understand on one hand, but also have to ask why committing a given crime using a gun should be more illegal than committing the same crime using other equipment.

 

[John Galt]

I can understand on one hand, but also have to ask why committing a given crime using a gun should be more illegal than committing the same crime using other equipment.

Maybe because firearms are more efficient? I really don't know, and that is a good question/point, but I am anxious to hear Kirk's response.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why not? Just curious why a tool like this to hold accountable those that abuse their right to carry a firearm isn't being used, which inevitably gives the anti-gunners cause to go after us innocent peoples firearms.

Good question. I cannot tell you, but I can speculate, which is what the Internet is for.

1. Bureaucratic inertia. "This is the way we have always done it". (My money is here).

2. They are ignorant of it.

3. The additional five (5) is not worth the added time/effort.

From the case law it appears that it is used in Marion County. However, if PAs do not use it, what good will this proposal do?

 

[John Galt]

Good question. I cannot tell you, but I can speculate, which is what the Internet is for.

1. Bureaucratic inertia. "This is the way we have always done it". (My money is here).

2. They are ignorant of it.

3. The additional five (5) is not worth the added time/effort.

From the case law it appears that it is used in Marion County. However, if PAs do not use it, what good will this proposal do?

What if 35-50-2-11, Sec. 11-3-C were to state "The state SHALL seek ..." instead of the current version of "The state MAY seek ..."? Based on your explanation above, it sounds like there are tools out there that might ultimately lessen gun violence (by getting and keeping repeat VIOLENT offenders off the street for an extended period of time), they're just not being used. The anti-gunners are seizing upon the actions of violent people, who, according to their previous actions and subsequent lack of additional charging by PA's under this statute, are continually committing violent crimes. Again, just being curious ...
Thank you for participating!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What if 35-50-2-11, Sec. 11-3-C were to state "The state SHALL seek

Then you are going to have a big, old fight with IPAC. If you attack the discretion of every elected PA and command them to do this, you will have 90 angry CLEOs in Indianapolis speaking out against this proposal.

Based on your explanation above, it sounds like there are tools out there that might ultimately lessen gun violence (by getting and keeping repeat VIOLENT offenders off the street for an extended period of time), they're just not being used.

Sure are, Habitual Offender, consecutive sentences, etc.

Every give your kid too many toys? What happens?

 

[John Galt]

Then you are going to have a big, old fight with IPAC. If you attack the discretion of every elected PA and command them to do this, you will have 90 angry CLEOs in Indianapolis speaking out against this proposal.



Sure are, Habitual Offender, consecutive sentences, etc.

Every give your kid too many toys? What happens?

Kirk, I'm coming at this with all due respect and from the angle of a regular citizen that does not work in law enforcement or the judicial system, only someone that reads A LOT about repeat offenders, many with prior gun crimes, who are repeatedly committing violent crimes, getting slapped on the wrist and released after a short time, only to go back to their same old routines. The anti-gunners use these crimes (committed by people who SHOULD BE in jail) as an excuse to infringe upon our right to own firearms. According to what you just posted, "This is the way we have always done it", isn't doing it and we are paying a price for this habit.
If this goes unchanged, nothing changes.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Please under that I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but understand that just because they General Assembly gives a Prosecuting Attorney a tool does not mean that they will use it.

If the General Assembly were to pass this proposal, then maybe a study committee to see what is happening "in the field"?

 

[Degtyaryov]

mandatory minimums are a farce.

 

[IndyDave1776]

mandatory minimums are a farce.

Agreed, and when you take the though out of an action, you get thoughtless results.