Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Let the Punishment Fit the Crime?

The bill specifically reduces drug convictions for possession of trace quantities of methadone, oxycodone, heroin, MDMA, cocaine, and methamphetamine from felonies to misdemeanors. [More]
In addition to the corrupting incentives on "law enforcement," I've long argued that the point at which a crime is committed is when someone else is victimized. Otherwise, we're talking about an issue that is medical, psychological, spiritual, moral... and you can't really get anywhere "treating" effects instead of causes.

That said, I've also long argued that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian, and I sure wouldn't trust some lost soul on brain scramblers with a gun.

I'd also be interested in seeing what "property crimes" are being "defelonized."

My prediction, since this is being overseen by Opposite Day "progressives" also bent on citizen disarmament: Things are gonna get a lot worse on all counts, and the community that will suffer the most is the one outraged over "racial disparities."

[Via Mack H]

2 comments:

Archer said...

From the article: A concurrent bill, H.B. 3078, defelonized certain property crimes often connected to drug use. [emphasis added]

My first thought was, "Great. They're downgrading 'property crimes' to misdemeanors. That means home invasions and burglaries of occupied residences are no longer 'forcible felonies' for the purpose of self-defense." Fortunately, that's not the case, but there is still cause for concern.

According to that bill, they "downgraded" sentencing only for "Theft in the first degree under ORS 164.055" and "Identity theft under ORS 165.800", both Class C felonies, to misdemeanor-level punishments. (The courts can still hand down felony-level sentences if there are enough prior or recent convictions on a list of other offenses.)

As an interesting aside, ORS chapter 164 defines "Offenses Against Property", but ORS chapter 165 does not; it is "Offenses Involving Fraud or Deception". So they are not both "property crimes", as H.B. 3078 says. Identity theft by definition is not a property crime, it is a personal crime.

Another interesting note: "Theft in the first degree" is an enhancement from mere "Theft", and one of the causes for distinction is clause (1)(c): "The subject of the theft is a firearm or explosive". Pair that with "safe storage" requirements (which thankfully, we don't have ... yet) and it becomes literally less legally risky to steal a firearm than to store one.

It also becomes less legally risky to try to purchase a firearm under an assumed identity than it is to try to purchase one under your own and make a mistake on the 4473.

Perhaps that's part of the intent?

Mack said...

David,

After I sent you this, I had a cynical thought.

What if part of the motivation is in response to the Trump ICE deportation order that basically limits the priority for deportation to those Illegals who have been convicted of felonies.

So you could have Illegals who are heroin users. Imagine that.

Good thing I don't live in Oregon, huh?