Monday, February 21, 2005
CNN Breaks federal firarms laws
And one blogger says that the ATF should be 'busting' the offending reporter.
I disagree. Well, partially. The ATF should investigate, and perhaps arrest the offender, but I think an all-out prosecution would be a waste of resources, since this wasn't done to commit a crime. Either no prosecution, or a slap on the wrist. Either way, some good 'ol fashion prosecutorial disgression is in order, since there are much bigger fish to fry than CNN's investigative reporters...like, you know, terrorists...
UPDATE: See the comments for a continued discussion on the issue of whether or not charges should be brought against the reporter (assuming the evidence is against him, obviously).
I disagree. Well, partially. The ATF should investigate, and perhaps arrest the offender, but I think an all-out prosecution would be a waste of resources, since this wasn't done to commit a crime. Either no prosecution, or a slap on the wrist. Either way, some good 'ol fashion prosecutorial disgression is in order, since there are much bigger fish to fry than CNN's investigative reporters...like, you know, terrorists...
UPDATE: See the comments for a continued discussion on the issue of whether or not charges should be brought against the reporter (assuming the evidence is against him, obviously).
Comments:
The thing is most federal firearms laws are not dependent on intent ot cause anyone any harm. Hence most prosecutions are not because someone was on his way to rob a bank. I don't have any numbers in front of me, but I'd wager good confederate money that a majority (& a heavy one at that) come from paper work violations, not from people grabbing firearms that they intended to use to cause real harm with.
& a slap on the wrist? It's a felony. Any charges being brought likely will result in a conviction & the reporter in question will face the plight of many many gun owners who didn't cross their "i's" - they'll be a felon w/ a few less rights than everyone else is supposed to have.
Now since you're talking about prosecurial discretion, then let's see a prosecutor start charging the atf agents (amongst others) with perjury. they did take an oath to uphold the constitution after all, & you can't really uphold it when you ignore amendments that you don't like.
& a slap on the wrist? It's a felony. Any charges being brought likely will result in a conviction & the reporter in question will face the plight of many many gun owners who didn't cross their "i's" - they'll be a felon w/ a few less rights than everyone else is supposed to have.
Now since you're talking about prosecurial discretion, then let's see a prosecutor start charging the atf agents (amongst others) with perjury. they did take an oath to uphold the constitution after all, & you can't really uphold it when you ignore amendments that you don't like.
That's a good point that if others have been charged for paperwork violations, than the CNN reporter should face the same penalties that others have faced in the past.
As far as prosecutorial discrection goes, I'm not sure how it works in the federal system. In Ohio, where I'm originally from, the state constitution gives the prosecutor broad discrection in determining whether it is in his jurisdiction's best interest to try the case; he has almost complete say in whether or not to go to trial, even if the party in question is obviously guilty. Sometimes it's just not worth the cost. And that doesn't mean the police officers in Ohio that arrested the man commited perjury. They were never called to testify if the case was never tried, so they can't commit perjury. And if no charges are brought, habeus corpus means you go free (unless you're a terrorist, but that's another story...).
Since I think the federal firarms laws are too stringent, if the prosecutor has leeway under the law and may choose to try or not to try the case, I think he should save our tax dollars (the deficit is big enough as it is) and the funds that would have been used for that case and for administering the probation of the convicted (or the cost of incarcerating him) can be used for more important law-enforcement tasks. It's all about cost/benefit.
Post a Comment
As far as prosecutorial discrection goes, I'm not sure how it works in the federal system. In Ohio, where I'm originally from, the state constitution gives the prosecutor broad discrection in determining whether it is in his jurisdiction's best interest to try the case; he has almost complete say in whether or not to go to trial, even if the party in question is obviously guilty. Sometimes it's just not worth the cost. And that doesn't mean the police officers in Ohio that arrested the man commited perjury. They were never called to testify if the case was never tried, so they can't commit perjury. And if no charges are brought, habeus corpus means you go free (unless you're a terrorist, but that's another story...).
Since I think the federal firarms laws are too stringent, if the prosecutor has leeway under the law and may choose to try or not to try the case, I think he should save our tax dollars (the deficit is big enough as it is) and the funds that would have been used for that case and for administering the probation of the convicted (or the cost of incarcerating him) can be used for more important law-enforcement tasks. It's all about cost/benefit.
