DA>JP> VH>I propose making it work properly by making a minor structural
DA>JP> change - VH>adding an office solely responsible for the prosecution
DA>JP> of these two VH>crimes (use of a firearm in a violent crime, and
DA>JP> possession of a firear VH>by a previously-convicted violent
DA>JP> offender.)
DA>JP> Why not make that read "deadly weapon" instead of "firearm?"
DA>What's a "deadly weapon"? Do you intend to add pencils, hands and feet
DA>to the list? You can kill with all three, you know.
DA>I don't think new laws are necessary at all. The main problem is the
DA>lack of will and resources. If we are determined to put violent
DA>criminals away and to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens, then
DA>there won't be plea-bargains and light sentences for violent criminals
DA>and repeat offenders.
That's why I have made this proposition -- not to produce a "new law"
but to change the system to emphasize ENFORCEMENT.
By having the responsibility for prosecuting two laws (use of a firearm
in a VIOLENT crime, and possession of a firearm by a
previously-convicted violent criminal) we eliminate plea bargaining.
The local prosecutor can't plea-bargain away these crimes -- and the
office that prosecutes them can't plea-bargain either, because this is
all they prosecute.
And they HAVE to prosecute, or go out of business.
This means they'll be constantly looking over the local prosecutor's
shoulder and saying "When are you going to prosecute Jones for Armed
Robbery?  Get a move on so **I** can prosecute him for using a gun."
--- PCBoard (R) v15.21/M 2
---------------