Connecticut Lawmakers Push 'Knockout Game' Bill, Citing Various 'Feelings' As Evidence Something Must Be Done
from the can-I-legislate-a-feeling? dept
A few states are still wrapped up in the "knockout game" panic, despite there being very little evidence that it's even a thing, much less something that can't be handled by existing assault laws. But since no panic can be allowed to escape unlegislated, sweaty-browed legislators are pushing bad, broadly-written bills in order to put an end to this scourge, one that lies somewhere between "vodka tampon" and "jenkem" on the scale of believability.
South Carolina's attempt is a complete disaster. It aims to criminalize the act of recording criminal activity, supposedly because no knockout game player ever lets a knockout go unrecorded. The list of unintended consequences that will spring from that addition is longer than most career criminals' rap sheets. Again, aiding, abetting and criminal conspiracy laws are all on the books and could be applied to both the person delivering the blow and to the person recording it. In short, a stupid and mostly redundant bill, words that also aptly describe the Connecticut legislature's attempt to turn the knockout game into its own criminal offense.
Legislation aimed at discouraging the “knockout game” cleared the Judiciary Committee on Monday over opposition from lawmakers who say the unprovoked attacks addressed in the bill are not a problem in Connecticut.The bill amends the statute applying to 2nd degree assault to add the following language.
The bill, which passed 31-10, would apply in criminal cases where an attacker strikes someone in the head without provocation and with the intent of knocking them unconscious. The legislation makes that attack a Class D felony with a mandatory two-year sentence. It also requires juvenile courts to transfer 16- and 17-year-olds accused of the crime to the adult criminal justice system.
or (6) with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person by rendering such other person unconscious, and without provocation by such other person, he causes such injury to such other person by striking such other person in the head.As Connecticut public defender Gideon points out in his blog post, this makes anyone who goes for a knockout (or intends to) subject to a harsher penalty than someone handing out a much more brutal beating.
[P]ursuant to this amendment to the Assault in the Second Degree statute, you will now be subjected to a harsher penalty for one knockout punch than you would be if you took a baseball bat and beat the crap out of someone. Doesn't that make a lot of sense?Of course, it doesn't make sense. But neither does claiming the knockout game is so pervasive it needs its own law. It's apparently headed towards epidemic levels if the state doesn't act, at least according to the wealth of statistics provided by proponents of the bill.
[Rep. Joe] Verrengia said it was difficult to determine how many of the attacks have occurred when he was asked Monday if there was any evidence suggesting that a large number have been committed by 16- or 17-year-old offenders.Fully justified. "One too many." No stats, just feelings. Feelings on top of feelings on top of gut instincts on top of "sending a message."
"I tried to wrap my arms around it, I tried to get statistics, but it's very difficult to do so by virtue of the present reporting requirements by various law enforcement agencies," he said. ". . . I think if you were to ask [victims] how many assaults have there been throughout the state of Connecticut, they would say, 'One too many.'"
Rep. Themis Klarides, R-Derby, said she understood the concerns of opponents but agreed that the crime should come with a more severe penalty.Oh, I see. It's not a real law. It's a message. Except it's a message with a mandatory 2-year sentence and the opportunity to be tried as an adult. And all over something the main bill pusher can't even "wrap his arms around." SEEMS BAD. DO SOMETHING!
"This isn't kids just playing around having fun. Although they think that's what it is because they've decided it's a 'game.' But there are people who have lost — pregnant women who have lost children because of it," she said. "At the very least, if this sends a message to these kids that think this is funny, I think we've done our job."
How bad is this legislative "something?" The bill's addition to the assault statute renders itself impotent.
Finally, do you know how badly they've destroyed logic? They've ruined their own bill and made it completely useless. How? Re-read the bill. What is the intent requirement in order to convict someone? That's right. "Intent to cause serious physical injury by rendering such other person unconscious."Add to that the inverted logic of Rep. Verrengia (again), who feels assault victims who have been rendered unconscious (or seemed to have been assaulted with that intent) should have an upgraded victim status.
Good luck proving that. Ever. I can almost guarantee that this subsection will never, ever be used because there's no damn "knockout game" and because no prosecutor can ever prove that intent.
Verrengia said he was seeking to make the victims of unprovoked attacks a protected class similar to how the law treats victims who are handicapped, pregnant, or blind.So many logical leaps made solely with the intent of curbing a criminal activity so (supposedly) dangerously prevalent no one has any stats on it. This bill is the epitome of "doing something." Everyone pushing it forward has plenty of feelings about the subject at hand but not a single one has offered anything in the way of evidence to justify rewriting this law. Laws are not emotional. They may be applied badly and enforced randomly, giving them the appearance of highly emotional entities, but they are most beneficial to society when they aren't conceived, written and argued by lawmakers who have allowed something as irrational as emotions to guide their hand.
"Although the victims in this case may not be legally blind, they are certainly blindsided by this sort of attack," Verrengia said. ". . . I believe it warrants that sort of penalty."