Living in Exile -- Federal prisons are filling up with people whose only crime is gun possession

Denver Westword ^ | Mar 21, 2002 | David Holthouse

[white trash redneck]

Though the NRA is undoubtedly the most effective gun rights lobbying organization we have, their support of Project Exile is a disgrace.

[sleavelessinseattle]

"I seen people killing people who ain't getting this much," Martinez said as he was led away. "I can't believe how much time you getting me for a gun."

So Sorry...Should have thought about this consequence before your committed your first felony...Once a violent or repeat criminal you don't get to smell gunpowder...Best punishment in the world...

The Law is the LAW...EXILE WORKS!!! But it works better if the difference between criminals and non-criminals is clear and enforced...Felony level crimes may not be a sufficient standard in non-violent offenses...I dont know the details,of Exile, or how the judges interpret them, but Violent people should lose their right to self defense...that's how it works....They carry guns to hurt others...unless we lock them up...end of rant

[Lazamataz]

The commercial begins with the sound of wind whistling over a lonely prairie. The camera pans to cyclones of razor wire atop the high walls of a federal prison outside Yankton, South Dakota. It then cuts to an intake area inside the prison, where a newly arrived inmate is processed. Two guards walk him down a long hall to his awaiting cell. Other prisoners catcall and whistle at him.

Words flash on the screen: "Think carrying a 9mm makes you a man?"

There is a pause, and more whistling.

"Lots of people in federal prison find that attractive."

Greeeeeat. Prison rape as a punishment tool.

I am losing some of that gusto for Project Exile that I first had. The original concept was good but it sounds like -- as happens almost all the time -- it is being corrupted.

[Dimensio]

I heard about a case -- I don't have any specifics, so I'll have to dig it up -- where a store clerk grabbed the gun of a robber (who stupidly set it down) and foiled the robbery, only to later be charged under illegal posession (simply for grabbing the gun) because of his own past criminal history. I think that sounds like corruption.

[Montfort]

Colorado's Project Exile was modeled on a similar program established in 1997 in the high-crime city of Richmond, Virginia. Violent crime there steadily declined in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Proponents of Project Exile, including Strickland and President Bush, have repeatedly pointed to these statistics as proof that Project Exile works. But this argument ignores the fact that violent crime has declined in cities all over the country, something many experts have attributed to the booming U.S. economy of the late 1990s.

I, too, have a problem with the fact that there is no distinction between violenta nd nonviolent felonies, but I am sure that almost all felons are aware that they can't own guns. Not all laws are necessarily fair, but this one is no less fair than the one that says the government can take up to 55 percent of your assets when you die.

That drop in violent crime might have something to do with the glut in prison space that liberals like to complain about, now that crime has dropped from criminals realizing that there is plenty of space for them.

The same author who would complain that some 60 IQ guy who had homemade brass knuckles now can't own a gun would probably have no problem if every middle class suburbanite lost his or her right to own a firearm.

[Sandy]

Related post: More Injustice on the Way

[Sandy]

See also:

There Goes the Neighborhood: The Bush-Ashcroft Plan to "Help" Localities Fight Gun Crime

The NRA Takes Aim at 10th Amendment

[hopespringseternal]

Project Exile achieves great results through very questionable means. First of all, these people belong behind bars. For a variety of reasons, most of which can be laid at the feet of liberal politicians, there aren't enough state prisons or state will to put and keep them there.

An excon possessing a gun is not in and of itself a moral wrong, and some of the people being charged did not so much possess a gun as they were found in the vicinity of a gun.

It is easier though to point out how the law should work than to examine the flaws in the convoluted system we have arrived at.

Punishment for crime should fit the crime. When a punishment is handed down, it should be carried out. When that punishment is finished, the punished should be given a clean bill and sent back into society as a free man. The only rememberance of his crime should be for the purpose of sentencing him if he is ever convicted of another crime.

[NittanyLion]

Here's a question for you: when a convict is released at the end of his/her term, have they paid their debt or not? It sounds as though you would argue they have not, and never can.

[Lurker]

I used to think the NRA actually fought for gun rights. I was wrong.

They've done more damage to the 2nd Amendment than Sarah Brady IMO.

L

[Minnesoootan]

Created by the prominent Madison Avenue advertising firm of Young and Rubicam, the TV spot was seen last summer by tens of thousands of Denver television viewers watching the Jerry Springer Show and World Wrestling Federation events.

funny that this is when they show the "Target Market" adds also,yah,I watch a little WWF once and awhile.....anyway,are they profiling with their advertising?are they saying that in this "market" lies the risk of the most offenders?

[Sandy]

They've done more damage to the 2nd Amendment than Sarah Brady IMO.

I think that's because pro-gun people trust the NRA, so they let their guard down and tell themselves, "hey, if the NRA is for it, then it must be okay." Beats thinking.

[NittanyLion]

I think that's because pro-gun people trust the NRA, so they let their guard down and tell themselves, "hey, if the NRA is for it, then it must be okay." Beats thinking.

Watch yourself Sandy. I've been blasted for using the same logic in regard to a similar topic.

[Robert357]

Here's a question for you: when a convict is released at the end of his/her term, have they paid their debt or not?

(1)If you believe that one is sent to prison for punishment and that the sentences are fairly given and not influenced by state budgets or prison over-population, then the answer would be yes.

(2) If you believe that a person is sent to prison to be rehabilitated or at least changed to the point that they are no longer a threat to society, then your answer would be yes. (3) On the otherhand, if the released prisoner is likely to re-offend (which is a very high probability event), then they haven't been "rehabilitated" and the answer is no.

(4)If when a prisoner is released they are released "early" and on probation, then the answer is no, they have not paid their debt.

In the real world, I think alternatives 3&4 are more common . I favor 3 strikes and you are out. I favor the NRA gun violation enforcement program as well. The numbers given early in the article indicate that the average sentence under the program for the 173 sentenced felons was just 5.2 years per person. If all they were guilty of besides possession of a firearm by a felon was drug use, then 5.2 years is a good amount of time to get sober & straight.

[Grut]

Here's a question for you: when a convict is released at the end of his/her term, have they paid their debt or not?

Apparently, it's kind of like having paid for Windows XP....

[HiTech RedNeck]

The thing which looks curious is the provision appearing to state that if a person has ever had inpatient psychiatric care, she is FEDERALLY banned from possession until the day of their death, even though state law may be more lenient specifying that the prohibition expires after a certain number of years. Is this a correct read? This sounds like an unjustified Federal intrusion into states' rights.

[wardaddy]

The problems with your "rant" are too numerous to list at this late hour of work. A reasonable idea that has become unwieldy and draconian.

[sleavelessinseattle]

Here's a question for you: when a convict is released at the end of his/her term, have they paid their debt or not? It sounds as though you would argue they have not, and never can.

That is an excellent question...We are in a society bound by laws in order to make it a safe place to raise children and pursue happiness...bearing in mind that I have reservations about evidentiary issues and extenuating circumstances in felony sentencing and Exile Guidelines since I'm speaking off the cuff, I say that a convicted violent felon is held to a higher standard of public responsibility for the rest of his days for having violated another person with violence...

Mike Tyson is VIOLENT...Even on Camera this RAPIST Drew blood from an opponent with his teeth...Would YOU give him a gun??? EVER? As a CCW holder, I am legally bound to leave a scene of violence...an unarmed person can throw a punch in self-defence, but I will be charged if I draw a gun if I'm only verbally threatened...This scenario happened to me in my beloved Seattle, just last week, Two gangster wannabes tried to get me to take them both on...I knew my responsibilities...allowed them to call me every profanity under the books, HATE CRIME, and Waited to see if they were going to assault me...Apparently I look bigger when seen up close since when I leaned in to the leader and quietly said..."Don't HURT yourself, son." He forgot why he had run across the street with his little yappy Homes to intimidate me...and I turned and continued on my way...The system limps along...nuff said...I ALWAYS forget to mention to these rodents in person..."You must like to have sex with other men to wanna be such a Gansta...B!TCH" As I got home I went "DOH!!!" Alls well that ends well, I guess.

[NittanyLion]

Thanks for both your responses. I'm still struggling with the issue of rehabilitation and further punishment myself. Guns are only one part; felons could be prevented from voting as well. Robert, on the issue of parole, that's clear in my mind: the convict accepts additional restrictions in exchange for an abbreviated sentence.

It's a really tough issue, that's for sure. Put another way, is a convicted felon any less entitled to their first amendment rights - and if so - what differentiates the 1st from the 2nd Amendment? I don't have the answers, but I think they're valid questions.