It benefits the rest of the law abiding citizens in this country. That's 10 more years that I don't have to worry as much about my car getting stolen, my home being broken into, getting mugged on the street, getting my shit vandalized, getting killed, having my friends or family killed. I could go on and on. Why should we have to worry about this shit? Why am I not allowed to park at an event without worrying about my shit getting stolen or broken into? Why do I have to buy a gun to protect my house and make sure everything is locked up everyday to keep people out? We shouldn't have to worry about any of that shit.
We should be able to live life comfortably without the fear of these pieces of shit out there who are looking to rob and steal what we work hard for. Why should I have to sit for 8-12 hours a day at a job I don't want to be at so some punk ass kid can just walk up and take what I've worked so hard to earn? Fuck that, rot in prison. They know the difference in right and wrong.
I have no problem with these enhancement sentences, as long as they're applied fairly to a real member of a gang. Think of it like the RICO statute, this could be helpful in trying to seriously damage the gangs. We're at a point where locking them up doesn't get them off the wrong path, but neither does leniency....so let's go with the options that keeps more of the scum off the streets
What is the legal basis for anything beyond the 10 years? Is that anything actually something criminal?
I don't think you can legally extend a sentence for something that isn't a crime. If the max for Crime X is 10 years then that's the max. It doesn't get elongated unless there's another crime involved and AFAIK being a gang member isn't a crime.
Doing anything else would be denying them due process.
It's the same as RICO - the guy gets arrested for extortion, but they add RICO statutes to his sentence.
Then use RICO.
RICO requires 2 separate criminal acts over 10 years and allows for charging of people who ordered the crime.
Being a gang member isn't a crime. And if it's being applied on the 1st criminal act then there isn't even the existence of a pattern of behavior.
I'm sure that you're more familiar with the statute, but I thought RICO could be used against any gang at any time.
Against.
This seems borderline unconstitutional. Kindof like those ridiculous gang injunctions they also have in California, which are definitely unconstitutional.
What happened to freedom of association?
Those gang injunctions are not ridiculous I see that you are in Houston, sugar land, the woodlands, or Pearland which one? Because if you lived in parts of actual southwest Houston I think you'd have a different opinion of what we do in California to try and control these assholes. "Protect and Serve" echoed a sentiment that I wrote in a previous post these perps get away with a ton of crimes before we can finally nail them on something.
And to educate you and a few others (not being sarcastic) there is no such thing as a part time "gangsta" or criminal. These assholes don't just commit crimes on the weekend or something. They get up at 11:am after being at a strip club till 3:am. Start cooking their crack, or tend to their weed plants then start selling until it gets dark. And some of the ones that don't actually sell (which is very few) have to "put in work" by tagging buildings(graffiti), breaking into hard working peoples cars, and houses. and shooting at other gang members whether they no the guy's affiliated or not.
There was a phenomenon out here in Cali a few years back where Mexican gang bangers were randomly killing black people who just happened to live in parts of east LA . that's the type of mentality and street terrorism these injunctions and increased sentencing laws are attempting to combat. But once again, I typed all of this and now we have Jerry Brown and he wants to put a lot of these multiple felon career criminals back on the street. To paraphrase Michael Savage, liberalism really is some type of mental problem.
There was a phenomenon out here in Cali a few years back where Mexican gang bangers were randomly killing black people who just happened to live in parts of east LA . that's the type of mentality and street terrorism these injunctions and increased sentencing laws are attempting to combat.
the reason why the Mafia is perversely successful is that they limit violence to each other. the reason why urban minority communities get so much media, and police scrutiny is because of the violence associated with their criminal pursuits. the kids out in the safe white suburbs doing heroin, and sniffing glue don't shoot up their neighborhood's kill little girls riding bikes then say incredulous things like "charge it to the game". Even impoverished white areas like parts of Appalachia esp WV, and your stereotypical trailer park, though these areas are rife with guns, and meth, and oxy codone, weed you name it. you just don't see the same level of gun violence.
Dude, I've lived in the third and fifth wards as well as "actual southwest Houston". I've been around street crime. There are other ways to deal with dangerous criminals without criminalizing belonging to an informal organization.
The 186.22 charge isn't super easy to just tack on to any gangster you arrest.
Atleast where I work, a regular patrolmen or even detective can't add that charge when they book someone. One of our gang detective experts has to review the case then build a file with all of the prior incidents and contacts to establish the person is a member of a gang and did what they did to benefit the gang.
The gang folder is usually thicker than the regular case folder outside of major cases like homicides.
I don't have a problem with the enhancement being used when it qualifies.
The only gang bangers i feel bad for are the ones who are like 2nd and 3rd generation gangsters. When mom and dad are active gang members, little junior is pretty much screwed from birth and odds of him actually escaping the gang culture alive are slim.
I have a hard time being sympathetic to gang members.