Equally disturbing is the decision on the part of prosecutors to refuse to prosecute people and gangs that engage in threatening or violent activity that, at the very least, disturbs the peace. In times past this was the way that the KKK was allowed to intimidate minorities by law enforcement that looked the other way. Today it's the way that Soros District Attorneys allow Antifa, BLM rioters and Hamas supporters to act as shock troops for the Left.
To add to your point the SA was the fighting arm of the NASDP. These paramilitary organizations always lead to the end of civil society and must be brutally put down by organized society or the result will be an Hitlerian dictator who will use the civil unrest as a way to seize power.
Harvey Silverglate's "Three Felonies A Day" (2009) is more relevant than ever...
The history of a felony under British common law is worth revisiting. The common-law felonies were: murder, manslaughter, mayhem, robbery, larceny, rape, sodomy, arson, and burglary. Crimes inflicted on persons or their property (arson and burglary).
Such paperwork and compliance offences (as Glenn describes) are ill-suited to the definition of a felony, irrespective of how important their deterrence may be.
A clear an elegant argument. If a felony conviction allows the government to suspend a right, and the government can control the definition and expand the number of felonies, we don’t have rights. We have permissions.
See laws that no one understands (a jury for example) and prosecutorial discretion and you get what is colloquially called a banana republic. “Three Felonies a Day” taught me to be very circumspect in prescribing certain medications. The pain some of my patients felt was chalked up to the aggressive treatment of the state AG and notches on his belt for convictions.
Sorry to say, but "pruning" will not happen although it should. Politicians win elections by being tough on crime. People live in unnecessary fear. Together they love to overly punish perceived criminals. Even the Soros funded pols would not "prune", they simply choose to not prosecute crimes on the books.
I'm not sure that's the case. I have a hard time believing that the "Soros" DAs won by being tough on crime or that people live in unnecessary fear. The chances of being shot and killed are low for civilians, and even for men at war but that doesn't mean that when a mass movement like BLM hits the streets and a handful of people are killed that fear is irrational. Like a lightning strike, the chances are low, but the result may be fatal. It takes little imagination to wonder what would happen if a mob decided to invade your street lobbing Molotov cocktails at random homes.
Under the kind of selective law enforcement that characterizes the Biden administration, where the mob feels protected and self-defense can be prosecuted, fear is rational.
In Chicago, corrupt alderman Ed Burke just received only 2 years in prison for his crimes. They didn't even force him to spend the money that he and his wife grifted out of the system for the last 40 years. He will get time off for good behavior etc....
The larger problem is that so many Justices can't seem to be able to read and understand plain English and original intent. Can you now imagine the new plethora of restraining orders we are going to get?
Equally disturbing is the decision on the part of prosecutors to refuse to prosecute people and gangs that engage in threatening or violent activity that, at the very least, disturbs the peace. In times past this was the way that the KKK was allowed to intimidate minorities by law enforcement that looked the other way. Today it's the way that Soros District Attorneys allow Antifa, BLM rioters and Hamas supporters to act as shock troops for the Left.
To add to your point the SA was the fighting arm of the NASDP. These paramilitary organizations always lead to the end of civil society and must be brutally put down by organized society or the result will be an Hitlerian dictator who will use the civil unrest as a way to seize power.
Harvey Silverglate's "Three Felonies A Day" (2009) is more relevant than ever...
The history of a felony under British common law is worth revisiting. The common-law felonies were: murder, manslaughter, mayhem, robbery, larceny, rape, sodomy, arson, and burglary. Crimes inflicted on persons or their property (arson and burglary).
Such paperwork and compliance offences (as Glenn describes) are ill-suited to the definition of a felony, irrespective of how important their deterrence may be.
A clear an elegant argument. If a felony conviction allows the government to suspend a right, and the government can control the definition and expand the number of felonies, we don’t have rights. We have permissions.
The more laws the less justice. --Cicero (a lawyer)
Beria must be smiling: "Show me the man and I will show you the crime."
"by analogizing to old laws that required individuals who had threatened others to post a “surety bond” before being allowed to carry arms,"
You can expect a Federal requirement for liability insurance immediately. After all, "gun violence" is an "epidemic" that threatens everyone.
See laws that no one understands (a jury for example) and prosecutorial discretion and you get what is colloquially called a banana republic. “Three Felonies a Day” taught me to be very circumspect in prescribing certain medications. The pain some of my patients felt was chalked up to the aggressive treatment of the state AG and notches on his belt for convictions.
just ask Mike Chase
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1982112514/reasonmagazinea-20/?ccs_id=efe8e1dc-2c45-4f89-a642-28db333435ee
Sorry to say, but "pruning" will not happen although it should. Politicians win elections by being tough on crime. People live in unnecessary fear. Together they love to overly punish perceived criminals. Even the Soros funded pols would not "prune", they simply choose to not prosecute crimes on the books.
I'm not sure that's the case. I have a hard time believing that the "Soros" DAs won by being tough on crime or that people live in unnecessary fear. The chances of being shot and killed are low for civilians, and even for men at war but that doesn't mean that when a mass movement like BLM hits the streets and a handful of people are killed that fear is irrational. Like a lightning strike, the chances are low, but the result may be fatal. It takes little imagination to wonder what would happen if a mob decided to invade your street lobbing Molotov cocktails at random homes.
Under the kind of selective law enforcement that characterizes the Biden administration, where the mob feels protected and self-defense can be prosecuted, fear is rational.
OTOH, recent years have seen a LOT of judges and prosecutors being installed exactly because they promised to be soft on criminals
"because they promised to be soft on Party troops."
FTFY. And you will not be considered Party.
I don't disagree. Note that the Soros funded folks are not into pruning unnecessarily severe statutes, they simply dismiss charges or reduce them.
That said, once they show their colors, the public is wary of that non-sense. Heck, SF recalled Chesa Boudin.
Reform is long overdue.
In Chicago, corrupt alderman Ed Burke just received only 2 years in prison for his crimes. They didn't even force him to spend the money that he and his wife grifted out of the system for the last 40 years. He will get time off for good behavior etc....
The larger problem is that so many Justices can't seem to be able to read and understand plain English and original intent. Can you now imagine the new plethora of restraining orders we are going to get?