Supreme Court sides with immigrant facing deportation

[*PhilHos*]

(04-18-2018, 03:18 PM)Au165 Wrote: That is not how our system works. People who take stuff don't get punished like people who physically hurt people. It's like saying that people speed and do it every day even with speed cameras with no regard for the law, so we should charge all speeders with vehicular assault to make sure they stop doing it.

SSF is not advocating for burglary to be renamed to something more serious. He's saying the punishment should be more severe. Using your analogy it would me like making the punishment for speeding to be jail time.

[Au165]

(04-18-2018, 03:35 PM)PhilHos Wrote: SSF is not advocating for burglary to be renamed to something more serious. He's saying the punishment should be more severe. Using your analogy it would me like making the punishment for speeding to be jail time.

He actually did say it should be classified as a violent crime. Along with the jail associated with violent crime convictions there are other things that come with it that basically make it being convicted of a whole different crime than burglary.

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2018, 02:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for stating exactly what I already said.

Sorry that I was not clear.  When I said there is nothing violent about burglary I was arguing AGAINST having it categorized as a violent crime.

[fredtoast]

So for Phil and SSF. How long do you think you have to lock a person up to keep him from committing a burglary ever again?

What would be your recommended period of incarceration for a home burglary?

How about burglary of a car, storage shed, or closed business?

How long should a person be locked up for charges like that?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-18-2018, 03:36 PM)Au165 Wrote: He actually did say it should be classified as a violent crime. Along with the jail associated with violent crime convictions there are other things that come with it that basically make it being convicted of a whole different crime than burglary.

Yes, to achieve what Phil just stated.  I'd prefer, as I later stated, that the penalty for burglary be elevated rather than reclassify the crime.

(04-18-2018, 03:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So for Phil and SSF.  How long do you think you have to lock a person up to keep him from committing a burglary ever again?

What would be your recommended period of incarceration for a home burglary?

First time, four years, out in two.  For repeat offenders add three years per instance.  For knock knock style burglars treat the number of offenses as one arrest for terms of recidivism, have them serve time consecutively.  Also, add criminal conspiracy if there is any evidence of prior planning such as a police scanner in the getaway car.  I'd even expand this to include evidence such as using an expensive rental car (to avoid attracting attention in the higher end neighborhoods these crimes are commonly committed in) during the commission of the crimes.  I'd also add gang enhancements if any of the participants are documented gang members as these crews always have to kick up a certain percentage to either a street gang or their crew boss.

Quote:How about burglary of a car, storage shed, or closed business?

How long should a person be locked up for charges like that?

Not nearly as long as the disruption to the victim isn't nearly as severe.  Keep the terms as is.  Since you mentioned auto burg, not auto theft, you're looking at replacing a window or door lock and whatever property you left in the car, commonly a cell phone.  Storage shed again contains almost no risk of escalation and even less disruption to the victim than the auto burg.  A closed business follows the same pattern.  While it is certainly disruptive to the owner, they don't reside there.  In all the above for-instances their feeling of safety in their home hasn't been ripped from them and they are almost certainly insured for whatever is stolen (except for the storage shed example).  It's interesting you bring this up though, because the legal marijuana dispensaries here are getting hit hard both burg and armed robbery wise.

[Au165]

(04-18-2018, 04:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First time, four years, out in two.  For repeat offenders add three years per instance.  For knock knock style burglars treat the number of offenses as one arrest for terms of recidivism, have them serve time consecutively.  Also, add criminal conspiracy if there is any evidence of prior planning such as a police scanner in the getaway car.  I'd even expand this to include evidence such as using an expensive rental car (to avoid attracting attention in the higher end neighborhoods these crimes are commonly committed in) during the commission of the crimes.  I'd also add gang enhancements if any of the participants are documented gang members as these crews always have to kick up a certain percentage to either a street gang or their crew boss.


Not nearly as long as the disruption to the victim isn't nearly as severe.  Keep the terms as is.  Since you mentioned auto burg, not auto theft, you're looking at replacing a window or door lock and whatever property you left in the car, commonly a cell phone.  Storage shed again contains almost no risk of escalation and even less disruption to the victim than the auto burg.  A closed business follows the same pattern.  While it is certainly disruptive to the owner, they don't reside there.  In all the above for-instances their feeling of safety in their home hasn't been ripped from them and they are almost certainly insured for whatever is stolen (except for the storage shed example).  It's interesting you bring this up though, because the legal marijuana dispensaries here are getting hit hard both burg and armed robbery wise.

Yea, we already got this covered. 3rd degree burglary is 1-5 years and 2nd degree is 2-8. All your add ons create more issues for prosecution than helping them. If a prosecutor has to prove pre planning then a defense attorney can poke a hole in it. If they have to try and insinuate what that rental car was the whole case can collapse around it. If they have to prove gang ties and it's relation to the crime then that becomes a sideshow derailing the case. 

Burglary as written now is easy to prosecute and tend to be open and close cases at the lowest level that you hate so much. The reason you want to leave it there is because it is so easy to put them away for some time at least. You make the burden of proof higher and some of these guys will start walking and prosecutors will just end up cutting deals anyways.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-18-2018, 03:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So for Phil and SSF.  How long do you think you have to lock a person up to keep him from committing a burglary ever again?

If the goal is to keep them from committing crimes ever again, then the sentence should be the death penalty. Can't burgle somebody if you're dead.

(04-18-2018, 03:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So for Phil and SSF.  How long do you think you have to lock a person up to keep him from committing a burglary ever again?

What would be your recommended period of incarceration for a home burglary?

How about burglary of a car, storage shed, or closed business?

How long should a person be locked up for charges like that?

Seriously, though, I'm not the one advocating for any changes to burglary punishment so I don't know why you're including me in this. It looked to me like Au165 misconstrued SSF's post. 

But, thanks for being inclusive. It's nice to be wanted

[StLucieBengal]

(04-18-2018, 03:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I gotta admit, I'm kinda in favor of deportation for committing any serious crime. Basically if the punishment of a crime is jail time, then it should be automatic deportation (not right away, give the convicted a chance to appeal and pursue legal avenues). I mean, why come to another country only to break its laws?

There should be no legal avenues. They are already illegal. Deport.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-18-2018, 05:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There should be no legal avenues.  They are already illegal.  Deport.

Actually, I believe the immigrant in the OP and the immigrants referred to in the law discussed in the OP are legal.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-18-2018, 04:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: Yea, we already got this covered. 3rd degree burglary is 1-5 years and 2nd degree is 2-8.

Cool, glad to hear you have this covered.  We do not.

Quote:All your add ons create more issues for prosecution than helping them. If a prosecutor has to prove pre planning then a defense attorney can poke a hole in it. If they have to try and insinuate what that rental car was the whole case can collapse around it. If they have to prove gang ties and it's relation to the crime then that becomes a sideshow derailing the case. 

With respect, you're way off here.  First, I'm not saying in every instance of x then y.  I'm saying be more aggressive about it then they currently are.  Conspiracy is a separate charge, it would not affect the burglary charge at all.  Having a police scanner in a rented vehicle show pre-planning rather easily.  Even if it doesn't, again, it doesn't affect the burg charges.  As for the gang enhancement, it's just that, an enhancement.  It also does nothing to affect the determination of guilt or innocence for the crime it is alleged to enhance.  The mere threat of it, it adds 10 years here in CA, would affect the current brazenness of these operators.  Making them more cautious means they commit less burgs.

Quote:Burglary as written now is easy to prosecute and tend to be open and close cases at the lowest level that you hate so much. The reason you want to leave it there is because it is so easy to put them away for some time at least. You make the burden of proof higher and some of these guys will start walking and prosecutors will just end up cutting deals anyways.

You totally go off the rails here.  Enhancing the sentence does not change the elements of a crime.  You literally could not be more wrong right here.

[Au165]

(04-18-2018, 05:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Cool, glad to hear you have this covered.  We do not.



With respect, you're way off here.  First, I'm not saying in every instance of x then y.  I'm saying be more aggressive about it then they currently are.  Conspiracy is a separate charge, it would not affect the burglary charge at all.  Having a police scanner in a rented vehicle show pre-planning rather easily.  Even if it doesn't, again, it doesn't affect the burg charges.  As for the gang enhancement, it's just that, an enhancement.  It also does nothing to affect the determination of guilt or innocence for the crime it is alleged to enhance.  The mere threat of it, it adds 10 years here in CA, would affect the current brazenness of these operators.  Making them more cautious means they commit less burgs.


You totally go off the rails here.  Enhancing the sentence does not change the elements of a crime.  You literally could not be more wrong right here.

You keep saying enhancements, yes those effect the charge because they have to prove those additional factors. If you have all these enhancements then you can get caught overcharging and get nothing. If you want to tack on separate charges then that is one thing but the idea that you can add all these criteria and think it doesn’t make the case more complicated is laughable. Going after higher degree crimes with higher degrees of punishment are harder and longer to prosecute, that is a fact.

I feel like what you really want is prosecutors to add multiple charges not try to add levels to the burglary statutes already in place. If that’s the case then that is up to the DA, but if the additional charges fit they they should file them as well.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-18-2018, 07:38 PM)Au165 Wrote: You keep saying enhancements, yes those effect the charge because they have to prove those additional factors. If you have all these enhancements then you can get caught overcharging and get nothing.

Again, wholly incorrect.  Enhancements do not make the enhanced offense any more or less difficult to prove.  The enhancement must be proven for it to take effect, but if none of the enhancements are found to be true then the charge can still be proven guilty without any additional difficulty.  In fact, enhancements being taken off the table are a frequent part of plea deals.

Quote:If you want to tack on separate charges then that is one thing but the idea that you can add all these criteria and think it doesn’t make the case more complicated is laughable.

I didn't say it didn't make proving all alleged offenses more difficult.  I said it doesn't make proving the enhanced offense, e.g. burglary, more difficult.  I say this because it is 100% fact.  Proving conspiracy is more difficult to proving a burglary, to be sure.  But attempting to do so when the elements are there is absolutely just and services the public good.  The fact that it isn't done is due to many factors.

Quote:Going after higher degree crimes with higher degrees of punishment are harder and longer to prosecute, that is a fact.

An enhancement is not a crime, it is an "enhancement" to a crime, hence the term.  Murder is murder whether it was committed by a common citizen or at the behest of a street gang.  The later would carry the gang "enhancement" but proving the elements of the murder are made no more or less difficult due to the enhancement.  

Quote:I feel like what you really want is prosecutors to add multiple charges not try to add levels to the burglary statutes already in place.

That's because you don't seem to understand the process being discussed.

Quote:If that’s the case then that is up to the DA, but if the additional charges fit they they should file them as well.

They absolutely should.  The unfortunate fact is that they frequently don't.  I don't work for the DA's office but I can only assume they are subject to same political pressures that every agency I work for or collaborate with are.  Hence my displeasure with the current state of things.

[Au165]

(04-18-2018, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, wholly incorrect.  Enhancements do not make the enhanced offense any more or less difficult to prove.  The enhancement must be proven for it to take effect, but if none of the enhancements are found to be true then the charge can still be proven guilty without any additional difficulty.  In fact, enhancements being taken off the table are a frequent part of plea deals.




I didn't say it didn't make proving all alleged offenses more difficult.  I said it doesn't make proving the enhanced offense, e.g. burglary, more difficult.  I say this because it is 100% fact.  Proving conspiracy is more difficult to proving a burglary, to be sure.  But attempting to do so when the elements are there is absolutely just and services the public good.  The fact that it isn't done is due to many factors.



An enhancement is not a crime, it is an "enhancement" to a crime, hence the term.  Murder is murder whether it was committed by a common citizen or at the behest of a street gang.  The later would carry the gang "enhancement" but proving the elements of the murder are made no more or less difficult due to the enhancement.  



That's because you don't seem to understand the process being discussed.


They absolutely should.  The unfortunate fact is that they frequently don't.  I don't work for the DA's office but I can only assume they are subject to same political pressures that every agency I work for or collaborate with are.  Hence my displeasure with the current state of things.

My point, which I’m not explaining well, is time. Yes, a prosecutor still has to show some sort of evidence of the criteria of these enhancements (other than repeat offender) to get them added. You can’t up it for conspiracy if you never laid out the timeline and pre planning done. Right now they just have to walk in and prove they were trespassing with intent to commit a crime. It’s overcumbersom for a prosecutor to even want to attempt for a relatively low level non violent crime.

I think all it would do is result in more plea deals down to where we are now anyways. I think repeat offenders in any crime pretty much should have a multiplicity applied to their sentence, so we have some common ground there.Interesting discussion.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-18-2018, 05:34 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Actually, I believe the immigrant in the OP and the immigrants referred to in the law discussed in the OP are legal.

Legal immigrants already have a threshold. They lose it on green card renewal.

Really it should be any felony for all non citizens = immediate deportation.