What Happened to “Tough on Crime?”
by Kemp Brinson
The Ledger reported recently about the sentencing of a Davenport resident to the mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison for firing a gun to run his daughter’s boyfriend out of the house. It’s not hard, looking at the text of the law itself, to predict a problem of exactly this sort. As a result, one would think the law imposing this would have been controversial at the time, right? Wrong.
The 10-20-Life statute that creates this mandatory minimum was passed under Gov. Jeb Bush in 1999. The votes? In the house, 106 to 11. In the senate, 35 to 1. This, citizens of the state of Florida, is exactly what you wanted. You wanted to make sure that people who fired guns while comitting felonies would spend at least 20 years behind bars, no matter what.
Criminal justice is a maddeningly frustrating topic to think about in any depth. Figuring out what to do with people who can’t behave stretches the boundaries of our values, our resources, and our intellect. It’s is not easy for lawmakers, judges, prosecutors, or law enforcement officers. It would appear that this particular sentence is inappropriate to nearly all reasonable people in the area, but try winning an election as a judge, sheriff, state attorney, attorney general, governor, or nearly any other elected office without boldly proclaiming how “tough on crime” you are and showing your record to back it up.
Because of plea bargaining, a very, very large number of defendants charged with 10-20-Life crimes do not get such harsh sentences. See: Orlando Sentinel article. So why was the vote on this law so one-sided? I have to believe that at least a healthy minority of the 106 representatives and 35 senators who voted to pass this thing knew intellectually that it would work gross injustice in some situations. No doubt, fear of accusations of being soft on crime forced their vote. Here’s hoping that, henceforth, our electorate can agree that one can be tough on crime without being rigidly formulaic about it.
Ignoring sentencing laws, what do you think IS the most appropriate punishment for this defendant? A high five and an “atta-boy?” A few years probation? A year or 2 behind bars? 5? 10? Anyone who thinks it’s easy is doing it wrong.
See also: MetroI4News.
What? It’s illegal to run boys off with a shotgun? I bought a gun just for this purpose. It’s one of the first things my daughter’s suitors are going to learn about me.
“Son, you are taking out my daughter tonight. She is the most precious thing in the world to me. And this is a 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. I use it to protect those things that are precious to me. Do we understand one another?”
I tried to read the article about this case, but the link took me to a discussion board instead of to the article. I’d like to read more about it.
Matt
I don’t know the particulars
Link fixed
I’ll admit that I was troubled when I read the article. There is no easy answer. I’m always concerned about legislators and voters making decisions on things that they really don’t know anything about. The popular decision isn’t always the right one, but it’s frequently the “easier” one.
A simplistic example that I can relate to: Board term limits may be the easy way out for a board that lacks the moral courage to remove a bad or ineffective board member. Honestly, I think you want to keep the good ones. :-) Happy Father’s Day.