[lbo-talk] it's inevitable

[andie nachgeborenen]

"Threat of death" gets you the violent crimes
enhancement (i.e., more time) under the federal
Sentencing Guidelines, even if you are unarmed, at
least as long as the victim reasonably things you
might be armed and able to execute the threat -- I
drafted a case on this for Judge Cummings in the
Seventh Circuit. I find it credible. Violence needn't
involve physical contact or harm; putting someone in
fear of physical harm or death strikes me as plausibly
a violent crime.  I believe that all or almost all
drug crimes also qualify for the enhancement on the
grounds that drugs are often accompanied with
violence. This strikes me as excessive and wrong.

--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:


> John Thornton asks:
> 
> > If I run into a liquor store with my hand in my
> pocket and
> > tell the clerk to give me the till is that a
> violent crime?
> > According to the DOJ it is. While I won't argue it
> isn't
> > monumentally stupid I will argue it isn't violent.
> 
> The threat of shooting someone unless they give you
> money, whether or 
> not the threat is credible (how will we know?  do we
> have to force your 
> hand?  what if you actually have a gun, but would
> never shoot it?) is 
> ABSOLUTELY VIOLENT.
> 
> Sheesh, what dictionary do you have today?
> 
> > You'll also notice that the two catagories that
> make up the
> > bulk of violent crimes are Homicide and Robbery
> with 12% and 13.8%
> > respectively. So how many of those violent crimes
> were
> > actually violent?
> 
> I'm gonna stick my neck out and say: all of them.
> 
> /jordan 
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com