In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Illinois Scorecard : Criminals 1, Victims 0
faldum
Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
Seems the Chicago press was silent on this one:
Illinois gun crimes law is struck down
By KEVIN MCDERMOTT St. Louis Post-Dispatch
updated: 06/19/2003 10:31 PM
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Illinois cannot tack on 15 or 20 years of prison time for certain crimes just because a gun was used, since that makes the punishment for some crimes harsher than the punishment for worse crimes, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In a decision that strikes down key parts of the state's "15-20-25-to-life" law enacted in 2000, the court reversed the sentences of 11 convicts from the Cook County area. The ruling will probably affect cases in Madison County, shortening sentences and causing prosecutors to take a new approach, an official there said.
The new law added extra years to defendants' sentences if they'd used guns during the crimes, with the "enhanced" prison time based on a specific formula: An extra 15 years if a gun was carried during the crime, an extra 20 years if the gun was fired, and an extra 25-to-life if someone was shot.
The problem, ruled the court, is that the law created violations of the constitutional principle of "proportionality" - meaning a given crime should not have a harsher punishment than a more serious crime.
For example, someone who commits aggravated battery with a firearm can get as little as six years under normal sentencing. But someone who simply carries a gun during a robbery will get at least 21 years in prison if the 15-20-25-to-life charges are invoked.
"The less serious conduct ... is punished more harshly than is the more serious conduct" under some circumstances, states the 4-3 court decision.
Supporters of the new law expressed frustration at the ruling Thursday. "I can guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of Illinoisans would agree with me that if a mother and her children have an automobile hijacked by a thug using a gun, that should be a tougher sentence," said state Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale, who sponsored the legislation that created the new law.
The court's ruling could mean shorter sentences for hundreds of defendants in Cook County alone, a county official said Thursday.
"One thing I can see happening from this is that as prosecutors, we will likely then be asking the court to impose more time when we get to the sentencing hearing phase," Fuller said, since the "15-20-25-to-life" option won't be available to prosecutors at the beginning of the cases when they are deciding what charges to file.
"The court may do that, the court may not," he said.
The Associated Press and Paul Hampel of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
Illinois gun crimes law is struck down
By KEVIN MCDERMOTT St. Louis Post-Dispatch
updated: 06/19/2003 10:31 PM
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Illinois cannot tack on 15 or 20 years of prison time for certain crimes just because a gun was used, since that makes the punishment for some crimes harsher than the punishment for worse crimes, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
In a decision that strikes down key parts of the state's "15-20-25-to-life" law enacted in 2000, the court reversed the sentences of 11 convicts from the Cook County area. The ruling will probably affect cases in Madison County, shortening sentences and causing prosecutors to take a new approach, an official there said.
The new law added extra years to defendants' sentences if they'd used guns during the crimes, with the "enhanced" prison time based on a specific formula: An extra 15 years if a gun was carried during the crime, an extra 20 years if the gun was fired, and an extra 25-to-life if someone was shot.
The problem, ruled the court, is that the law created violations of the constitutional principle of "proportionality" - meaning a given crime should not have a harsher punishment than a more serious crime.
For example, someone who commits aggravated battery with a firearm can get as little as six years under normal sentencing. But someone who simply carries a gun during a robbery will get at least 21 years in prison if the 15-20-25-to-life charges are invoked.
"The less serious conduct ... is punished more harshly than is the more serious conduct" under some circumstances, states the 4-3 court decision.
Supporters of the new law expressed frustration at the ruling Thursday. "I can guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of Illinoisans would agree with me that if a mother and her children have an automobile hijacked by a thug using a gun, that should be a tougher sentence," said state Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale, who sponsored the legislation that created the new law.
The court's ruling could mean shorter sentences for hundreds of defendants in Cook County alone, a county official said Thursday.
"One thing I can see happening from this is that as prosecutors, we will likely then be asking the court to impose more time when we get to the sentencing hearing phase," Fuller said, since the "15-20-25-to-life" option won't be available to prosecutors at the beginning of the cases when they are deciding what charges to file.
"The court may do that, the court may not," he said.
The Associated Press and Paul Hampel of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
Comments
And, crime is crime. Because a gun was used is irrelevant. Because a gun was fired is irrelevant. If they want to throw charges of "discharging (a gun)in the commission of a felony" into the case, then "brandishing (a knife) in the commission of a felony" should be no different. This type of laws are designed to demonize guns and inadvertently devalue a victim's life or well-being.
Death to Tyrants!!!
Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
Luke 22:36.
quote:And, crime is crime. Because a gun was used is irrelevant. Because a gun was fired is irrelevant.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your logic:
If an individual walks unarmed into a convenience store and
says to the clerk: "Give me all of your money!"
And another individual enters the same store, except he/she
points a handgun at the clerk
and utters the same phrase....
You feel the difference is irrelevant?
I think I know which scenario I would prefer....
Three Precious Metals: Gold, silver and lead
If anyone wants to know where Ronnie Perkins is, e-mail Sissymaria19542002@yahoo.com
When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions.
Three Precious Metals: Gold, silver and lead