No, we don’t want citizens bringing weapons into court rooms and imposing their own sentencing, but I believe it was fair to not imprison this woman for her “crime.” The man was guilty. He had destroyed her son’s life. She behaved rationally. She is no threat to society and the judge sentenced her accordingly.

New Yorkers may like their gun laws — that is their prerogative of course. I just wish they wouldn’t and I would argue that they should keep the law, but change the sentencing policy. I exercise my vote by not living there or wanting to — sort of like Rush (his protest move out of NYC in response to a tax hike). That’s minor of course, but it’s all I’ve got.

I wouldn’t assume most people would understand (legislators included) understand the possible consequences — like the Grandma busted for buying cold medicine twice in 7 days (in my last link). They don’t see themselves as criminals and so don’t always follow those statutes. The lack of knowledge of what a statute will do when used is another argument for a legislature to hold back perhaps — get involved in a few areas, and draw narrowly tailored laws. Better to err on a few going free than to wrongly imprison or criminalize otherwise good people. Prosecutorial and judicial discretion are republican checks on democracy. When the ability to use them is lost either due to sentencing guidelines, lack of ethical and moral training in law schools or whatever we become less free.

Prosecutorial discretion can always be abused, and not always in the overzealous direction. I don’t think this issue is as black and white as you’ve argued.

My main gripe with the Burress situation (presuming his guilt and his idiocy) I would like to know why — morally — he deserves 2 years of prison and 2 years of probation when he has no priors I’m aware of, shot himself and will lose 4 years of his limited career range (given that his chosen profession does not allow for traditional career trajectories that consequence is greater than most jobs) over say just probation and a huge fine and a limit on his gun rights. Do we need a pound of flesh too? Just because “it’s the law” doesn’t make it right — or wrong — for that matter.

I am pro-prosecution pro-cop, etc. I have worked for and with law enforcement for 15 years. The answer to the Great Society’s permissiveness via unalloyed acceptance of 1950/60s sociology and psychology is not a complete hard core “let’s arrest everybody” approach. Many conservatives (myself included) have focused so much on “locking people up” that we are in very real danger of creating a society where we are afraid of our government because they can now lock up the majority of people whenever some prosecutor feels like it based on our labyrinthine laws.

So while I understand completely the inclination I’m distressed that some conservatives are tempted to say “F*&k Plaxico” when he’s merely an example of a deeper problem… Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart, (see the link I posted) When the rich are in danger — how much more are the rest of us? Part of the law is of course deterrence and making examples, but when the end becomes example of government power and the means are individuals — we’ve gone too far.

And we haven’t reached tipping point necessarily, but the examples of abuse are growing.

…a disdain for individuals I find disconcerting in anyone and near distressing in those proclaiming to be conservative.

I shudder to think what you would have said if you hadn’t given us the benefit of the doubt!

I actually had that WSJ article bookmarked to post about before real life* intruded upon my plans a few days ago. I agree with you, and since—in this post—you haven’t implied that it is a greater injustice for rich people to be unfairly imprisoned than it is for poor people, I’ll leave it at that.

———————–
*A nasty, disturbing, uncomfortable thing. Makes you late for dinner!