HB 4287 Increase penalties for possession of firearm during robbery

[Tallbear]

HB 4287 of 2017 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2017-HB-4287)
Crimes; robbery; penalties for possession of weapon during a robbery; increase. Amends sec. 529 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.529).
Last Action: 3/2/2017 bill electronically reproduced 03/01/2017

[DEVIL DOG]

Well, an extra 5 years will make me happier, but how much of a real deterrent will this be ?

[45 acp]

As I read it, it does not increase the penalty for just possessing a firearm.
From the introduced law:

If an aggravated assault or serious injury is inflicted by
any person while violating this section, the person shall be
sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years.

What is aggravated assault in Michigan?

For an Assault to become an Aggravated Assault in Michigan, it must meet the definition of Assault or Assault and Battery, plus it must result in a “serious or aggravated injury.” MCL 750.81a

A “serious or aggravated injury” means a physical injury which meets any of the following 4 descriptions

•It requires immediate medical treatment;
•It causes disfigurement;
•It causes impairment of health; or
•It causes impairment of a part of the body

Rather than have any deterrent it may be a justification to leave no witnesses.


Just another feel good law, however I am ok with it being 5 years minimum rather than 2 years

[mikeb32]

The Punishment for doing the crime is longer, will it be a deterrent?, remains to be seen.

I would support this.

[Roundballer]

Well, an extra 5 years will make me happier, but how much of a real deterrent will this be ?

I would assume little to none.

Deterrence Theory assumes that people:

Know what the penalties for a crime are
Have good control over their actions
Think things through and make choices about their behavior based on logic, not passion
Have a reasonable expectation of being caught

In the case of many crimes, these assumptions just aren't true.
How well will this new "deterrent" be "advertised" so that it has go from 2 to 5?
How well will the Prosecutors be able to apply it, or will it just be "plead" away for conviction rates?
Do criminals commit crimes KNOWING they will be caught, or is there always some inkling that they will get away with it?

The English made a major discovery in the late 1600's. They had a severe problem of "Highwaymen". The Crown then imposed the death penalty for those caught. It didn't have the intended impact. The Highwaymen just stopped leaving living witnesses.

Even so, deterrence theory does seem to have some merit

[Tallbear]

Don't know any bad guy that looks at the law to see how much trouble he will get into if he will get caught before he goes to something wrong.

[Roundballer]

Okay, I think that we have all been reading this wrong. This is not an increase in the penalty for an additional charge, it is a change in minimum sentencing for possession of a weapon during a violation of 750.530. (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-530)

MCL 750.530 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-530)

Sec. 530.

(1) A person who, in the course of committing a larceny of any money or other property that may be the subject of larceny, uses force or violence against any person who is present, or who assaults or puts the person in fear, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years.

(2) As used in this section, “in the course of committing a larceny” includes acts that occur in an attempt to commit the larceny, or during commission of the larceny, or in flight or attempted flight after the commission of the larceny, or in an attempt to retain possession of the property.
This is just for "Strong-arming", violent larceny, no weapon, and carries a 15 year penalty.

Then (with the change included) MCL 750.529 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-529) alters the sentencing if a "dangerous weapon" is involved.

MCL 750.529 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-529)

Sec. 529.

A person who engages in conduct proscribed under section 530 and who in the course of engaging in that conduct, possesses a dangerous weapon or an article used or fashioned in a manner to lead any person present to reasonably believe the article is a dangerous weapon, or who represents orally or otherwise that he or she is in possession of a dangerous weapon, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or for any term of years. If an aggravated assault or serious injury is inflicted by any person while violating this section, the person shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 2 5 years.


So, all they are doing is raising the minimum to 5 years, and can go as high as life.

I still don't think that this will have any impact on the crime rate, except in the instances of repeat offenders where they won't be able to for an additional 3 years.

[westcliffe01]

Seems it will increase the cost to the taxpayer. It costs $30-60k per year to house an inmate in prison and so minimum sentencing just increases the cost to society without any change to the outcomes.

If there were to be a taxpayer review of the cost of sentences that judges hand out, perhaps people would think twice about what a good idea all these laws are, when basic infrastructure is not being maintained. A serious review of sentencing guidelines is long overdue. The problem with having such a big inmate population is that the criminal justice system involves so much money changing hands that it is a VERY big special interest group, hell bent on finding more and more ways to extract more money from the population. The impact that this all has on the ability of the US as a country to be successful is pretty dire. Once you have been an inmate, and served your time, your prospects are very very limited and it is a massive waste of resources, to make other people feel good (for about 5 minutes).

[DV8r]

Seems it will increase the cost to the taxpayer. It costs $30-60k per year to house an inmate in prison and so minimum sentencing just increases the cost to society without any change to the outcomes.

If there were to be a taxpayer review of the cost of sentences that judges hand out, perhaps people would think twice about what a good idea all these laws are, when basic infrastructure is not being maintained. A serious review of sentencing guidelines is long overdue. The problem with having such a big inmate population is that the criminal justice system involves so much money changing hands that it is a VERY big special interest group, hell bent on finding more and more ways to extract more money from the population. The impact that this all has on the ability of the US as a country to be successful is pretty dire. Once you have been an inmate, and served your time, your prospects are very very limited and it is a massive waste of resources, to make other people feel good (for about 5 minutes).
There are few laws passed that don't put a greater burden on us tax payers, if not directly then indirectly.

[luckless]

Mandatory minimums have never made any sense to me.

[Sticks]

Criminals don't read the laws, they don't care about the laws, their job is to break the laws and hope they don't get caught.. Some states have the death penalty for heinous crimes including murder, yet people are still murdered, all states have life sentences, that hasn't deterred many. All HB 4287 does is make the liberals feel all warm and fuzzy that something is being done about guns.

[jeff s]

Remember when Michigan passed the Possession of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony with mandatory 2 year sentence and how this would stop gun violence?

[Roundballer]

All HB 4287 does is make the liberals feel all warm and fuzzy that something is being done about guns.
:rofl:

Maybe the two sponsors haven't heard that yet.

How about you let Klint Kesto (R), District 39 (http://gophouse.org/representatives/southeast/kesto/) and Brandt Iden (R), District 61 (http://gophouse.org/representatives/southwest/iden/) know that their bill is liberal feel good legislation?

:cheers: