Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by the jury trials for misdemeanors when the legislators know these would never happen. That means legalizing all misdemeanors. Noise, fights, non-felony crimes and robberies, any number of antisocial behaviors. DC would be bedlam.

The frustrating part of this discussion is that so many of those with very strong opinions appear to be misinformed about the legislation. The jury expansion is only for misdemeanors that include jail time. Nobody is getting jail time for noise or many of the other things you list. Therefore, those will continue to be handled just as they are now. The jury expansion will be handled in three phases, with the most serious misdemeanors being included in the first phase. Before proceeding to implementation of the second or third stages, the previous stage must be reviewed. So, if there are problems such as you predict, implementation would be halted.

Contrary to popular belief, the legislation was not developed by a bunch of wild-eyed progressives wearing "Defund the Police" t-shirts. A commission worked on the revision for years and heavily relied on model legislation used in other states. Things were carefully thought through. To the extend the Council deviated from the Commission's recommendations, they increased penalties.

Mandatory minimums got a bad rap because they have been abused where it comes to drug offenses. Drug possession and drug use should instead be dealt with through treatment and rehab, not prison. But for violent offenders and serious repeat offenders, mandatory minimums should still be kept in place.

Anonymous wrote:Do you have any details on the misdemeanor question above?

On your point right above, seriously what if, let’s say enough people get bussed in and stay here for 31 days and then vote, and a new Council passes anti-abortion bill? Would you say, fair play??

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by the jury trials for misdemeanors when the legislators know these would never happen. That means legalizing all misdemeanors. Noise, fights, non-felony crimes and robberies, any number of antisocial behaviors. DC would be bedlam.

The frustrating part of this discussion is that so many of those with very strong opinions appear to be misinformed about the legislation. The jury expansion is only for misdemeanors that include jail time. Nobody is getting jail time for noise or many of the other things you list. Therefore, those will continue to be handled just as they are now. The jury expansion will be handled in three phases, with the most serious misdemeanors being included in the first phase. Before proceeding to implementation of the second or third stages, the previous stage must be reviewed. So, if there are problems such as you predict, implementation would be halted.

Contrary to popular belief, the legislation was not developed by a bunch of wild-eyed progressives wearing "Defund the Police" t-shirts. A commission worked on the revision for years and heavily relied on model legislation used in other states. Things were carefully thought through. To the extend the Council deviated from the Commission's recommendations, they increased penalties.

Anonymous wrote:In your blog, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, you said something like if you are pro statehood you have to be pro this or any legislation that comes out of the council, and if you are not pro statehood that somehow “colonial”.

I think that’s the point of divergence. DC is in my opinion privileged and doesn’t take full advantage of that privileged status in the federation. Also, what if the legislation coming out of the council was an abortion ban?

You said you can’t have it both ways. But I think intelligent, political beings must have it more than one way in a democracy.

I stand corrected on the misdemeanors, and I really tried to read about it. That says something to me about how much the council didn’t care whether people understood it or not. I can’t find a summary or a table of changes on their website. Please share it if you can so I can know better.

If it’s not available and you know already, what are the misdemeanors that would require a jury trial under the new law — below are some QoL issues frequently brought up here:

ATVs?
Simple assault?
Battery?
Braining/bricking?
Carjacking of a running, unlocked, locked car?
Burglary? What kind?
Squatting?
Smoking on your doorstep?
Drug sales (small quantities on a person)?
Fraud up to $$$$?
Robbery up to $$$?
Knife v gun threat?
Wife beating?
Child bearing?
Child doing all of the above and more?

I’m not trying to be facetious but I don’t think this is that simple or that ideological.

Under current law, unarmed carjacking has a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years and maximum sentence of 21. If armed, that jumps to 15 and 40, respectively. (For context, that 40-year maximum is double the current maximum for second-degree sexual abuse.) Under the revised code, carjacking is divided into three gradations depending on severity, with the lowest penalties for an unarmed offense running from four to 18 years and the highest penalties for an armed offense ranging from 12 to 24 years.

Anonymous wrote:Just as I write out my long post, I saw this so I’m not the only one.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TL;DR for carjackings in DC, there's a 21% chance of police actually doing something, and a 5% chance of it actually resulting in conviction.

Does anyone think those numbers are acceptable?

I don't think those numbers are acceptable. I also don't think that fixating on whether the minimum sentence is 4 or 7 years makes a lot of sense given how few perpetrators make it that far.

well then why does the code rewrite fixate on changing the maximum? answer: to reduce actual sentences. which yes, will result in more carjacking.

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2022/20220621_Recidivsm-SentLength.pdf

The maximum in the revision is 24 years. Judges have rarely given that much so it is really immaterial. What do you think is the proper maximum?

Anonymous wrote:In your blog, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, you said something like if you are pro statehood you have to be pro this or any legislation that comes out of the council, and if you are not pro statehood that somehow “colonial”.

I think that’s the point of divergence. DC is in my opinion privileged and doesn’t take full advantage of that privileged status in the federation. Also, what if the legislation coming out of the council was an abortion ban?

You said you can’t have it both ways. But I think intelligent, political beings must have it more than one way in a democracy.

I stand corrected on the misdemeanors, and I really tried to read about it. That says something to me about how much the council didn’t care whether people understood it or not. I can’t find a summary or a table of changes on their website. Please share it if you can so I can know better.

If it’s not available and you know already, what are the misdemeanors that would require a jury trial under the new law — below are some QoL issues frequently brought up here:

ATVs?
Simple assault?
Battery?
Braining/bricking?
Carjacking of a running, unlocked, locked car?
Burglary? What kind?
Squatting?
Smoking on your doorstep?
Drug sales (small quantities on a person)?
Fraud up to $$$$?
Robbery up to $$$?
Knife v gun threat?
Wife beating?
Child bearing?
Child doing all of the above and more?

I’m not trying to be facetious but I don’t think this is that simple or that ideological.

Anonymous wrote:I am horrified by the jury trials for misdemeanors when the legislators know these would never happen. That means legalizing all misdemeanors. Noise, fights, non-felony crimes and robberies, any number of antisocial behaviors. DC would be bedlam.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think there should be a max over 20 years for any crime. If you are a serial murderer that’s a mental institution and can be for life or until no danger. So I’m very ok w reduced maximums.

I am horrified by the jury trials for misdemeanors when the legislators know these would never happen. That means legalizing all misdemeanors. Noise, fights, non-felony crimes and robberies, any number of antisocial behaviors. DC would be bedlam.

It’s a terrible legislation without serious corrections, that shows just how unserious and disinterested in the DC population’s well-being this council is — they’re in it for their own careers. End of story.

It’s a firm no.