If I read your link correctly, this fella didn’t endanger anyone. It was what we call in the industry a “status offense”. He was ineligible to possess firearms and ammunition and he was found to do so. Who, exactly, did he endanger?
Of course, you're right again.
He is just a drug dealer, with distribution-level quantities of drugs in his possession. 60 grams of pot (over 2 ounces) - which is still illegal in Florida, plus 70 grams of coke (roughly 2-1/2 ounces) - which is illegal EVERYWHERE. And, he was arrested because he was selling the coke to undercover BATFE agents. I mean, a drug dealer with firearms isn't a danger to anyone, right?
If that's who you want running loose in your community - rather than being behind bars - I don't want to live in your community. Could it be that this kind of permissive attitude towards criminal activity, and accepting the current status quo of how "the system works", could be contributing to the breakdown of our communities? That certainly seems like a reasonable possibility to me.
ANYWAY, back to the original point...
Why is this guy getting the minimum sentence for 1 charge for possessing ammo - instead of ALSO facing gun possession AND drug possession charges?
Muss really made my point with his explanation of "you are ignorant of how the SYSTEM works..." post. That's my point - the system isn't really "working". The article I posted a link to highlights the fact that THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN - and FWIW, I am NOT ignorant of that fact.
Dismissing the more serious charges and putting every repeat felon away for a MINIMUM amount of time is why lifelong criminals view our "justice" system as a revolving door. Because it is.
In the name of expediency, DA's pursue, and then judges go along with, plea deals that subject these miscreants to the bare-minimum consequences for their actions. And, of course, the criminal element KNOWS this. In fact, they are BANKING on it.
I believe that if criminals knew that their criminal activities would result in REAL, harsh consequences (not a few years in a prison setting that is actually an improvement over their current basic standard of living) then, eventually, there would be less crime to be prosecuted. People will commit more crimes when they believe that the potential rewards outweigh the consequences of getting caught and prosecuted. That is what is wrong with our current "system". The risks are less than the rewards. We need to increase the "risks" for criminal activities.
FWIW, I haven't seen any tax levies - or other proposed tax increases - that were earmarked to pay for incarceration of criminals, that have failed in my part of the country. But maybe I missed something.
The fact is that my state's legislature won't even propose something like that. They only want to increase funding for far-left causes like gun control. They aren't the least bit interested in actually controlling CRIMINAL activity. They are too busy pushing measures to defund police and hamstring LEOs in their attempts to apprehend criminals.
I think that most taxpayers would be in favor of tax increases - if the money was guaranteed to go towards promoting public safety by keeping criminals behind bars.
I know I would, and I've never seen a tax increase that I was in favor of. But, then, the Washington State legislature has never proposed increasing my taxes to keep criminals off the street. At least not in the 40 years I've lived here. Rest assured that THAT would be a tax increase I would support.
I was reading an article just last week about a bill under consideration in the US Congress to increase the number of Federal-level judges by about 25%. The whole point of that bill was to get more judges on the bench to reduce the HUGE backlog of cases. Unfortunately, the bill was stalled over fights about WHEN these new judges would be appointed. Why? Because it would affect WHO actually got to make the appointments.
So, increasing the number of Federal judges to preside over and clear out the existing backlog of cases is being held up over the issue of whether X number would be appointed by the current administration vs Y number being appointed by the new, incoming administration, and Z number being appointed under other future administrations. That is such a perfect illustration of the real problem.
We can't move forward because it would mean upsetting the entrenched status quo, and the whole process has become more about politics than justice.
The status quo of the administrative state can't be overturned fast enough IMO.
