Part 5--The real dangers to families

Threats of terror

The ridiculous disparities do not end there but get worse. As sad as it is for all involved, drunk driving kills people daily, yet daily drunk drivers get off,  but when has a verbal threat ever even got someone’s pinkie-finger stubbed?  Yet, in California, being convicted of an angry statement (only a heard and then regurgitated statement, not even a full-blown flowing free speech!) such as ''I'm going to kick your ass", will get you a violent criminal strike which may include prison time (and lead to a life sentence!) for what they've labeled "Terrorist threats" *. This will also mandate parole or probation thereby increasing your likelihood of returning. And now since you have a strike, no matter the nature of the strike-carrying first offense, in any future convictions, your sentence, historically, would be doubled and put at 80% to 85% mandatory time to be served. Therefore, not only “double,” but forever putting them in “Jeopardy” for a crime they already were punished for.  While this may seem like a good deterrent for reducing crime, the research has failed to support this hypothesis.

A society should strive for greater objectivity, and thus equality, in social applications, especially in regards to state violence as means for promoting justice.  Why then, we should ask, is the penalty for a verbal threat so extreme?  Well, in America you are almost twice as likely to die from an argument or brawl than from someone during the commission of a felony. But then if arguments are so dangerous why aren't they labeled "violent" and why don't they carry 10-year enhancements for each arguer, say if arguing in reach of a potential deadly weapon? ① Why not "brawl" enhancements for arguments? One out of every 100 carjacking’s result in the hospitalization of the victim (11), how many fist fights happen before someone visits the hospital? You would think that it would be way less than a crime for which you lose at least 10 years of your life. Plus, shouldn't a fight be looked at as one step closer to murder for the arguer?

Is the justice system’s overlooking of the relative danger—as compared with other violent felonies—in arguing because originally an argument takes two? But driving drunk only takes one, and even if, when criminals fight, shoot and, rob each other our law doesn't hesitate to punish both, or either, in fact, it often increases their punishments with things like that mandatory minimum 10-year gang enhancement, even though just like 2 average people in an argument, what they do rarely affects our own safety.  Are we trying to protect ourselves, or simply lynch them?  Drunk drivers statistically even go after our babies, with murderous success, how come they aren't so casually labeled "violent"? 16,694 Americans died in 2004 because of them, and these often weren't gang members, relatives, or acquaintances who died, many of these people were 100% innocent random victims (at a far greater number and age-range than carjacking victims). They were given no choice, no warning, and no opportunity for provocation of any kind. Even for individuals who are completely sober, California has mandatory minimum sentences of an extra 10 years for simply having a broken shell of a gun while committing certain felonies.  Sure, someone with a gun is likely dangerous, sober or not, and needs to be dealt with by society.  But as scary as it seems, a gun does not speak on the violence of a criminal any more than does a lack of one. While all are horrible, I, personally, would rather be shown a broken, unloaded gun while having my wallet taken, than being physically hit; or dying in an auto accident.  A car is, in fact, just as dangerous as a gun in the wrong hands. Why is there no alcohol-related mandatory minimum, 10-year sentences, or even 10-month, for certain infractions, say for speeding or unsafe lane changing? As an automobile driver, you have a 1 in 247 chance of dying in an accident. A broken gun does not shoot, but generally, your chances of being even non-fatally shot are only 1 in 452,476.  And in America, unless you're one of Dick Cheney's friends, getting shot usually takes provocation (just kidding Dick, I’d still be your friend).
* For the world’s sake, I wish terrorism was mainly an issue of threats instead of violence for the pursuit of political aims.

Part 4--The more "minority" a crime is, the worst the punishment will be.

Think about it, really think: What American could say, without the intention of sounding sarcastic, “Planning on driving a deadly weapon around while drunk much better than showing a broken shell of a gun, or being a gang member and running out of a vacant motel room with merchandise”?  But such would have to be the truth to make it fair that we receive a ticket while they get a mandatory 10-year gang or gun enhancement and at least one strike all added on top of whatever the actual "violent" theft brings them. Whatever it is, the probability is that it will be over 10 complete years in prison, actual time to be served.

How prevalent is random violent crime in America, the sort carried out in which we want to put those dangerous, habitual, violent perpetrators away for life before they hurt us or our loved ones? Well, speaking of loved ones, you are 3 times more likely to die from what was a “peaceful” ( in that it had not resulted in a "brawl") argument with a family member or acquaintance, than you are from all random (by someone you have no relationship to) robberies, car-jacking instances, burglaries, and rapes combined! ① To beat a dead horse, again, not just as likely, but 3 times as likely; so statistically speaking, the chances of you seeing someone die as a result of one of the above felonies is the same as seeing three random people die at the hands of someone they were related to or had known.

Maybe more eye opening still, and useful to keep your kids in line while you are away, though two-thirds of carjacking victims resisted, in 2008, one was almost twice as likely to be killed by ones’ own babysitter than from either a carjacking, and/ or rape, by a stranger combined! Those other criminals still seeming like a big threat? Well, how about this one: we'll add the drunks with the speeders, racers, senile, and all the rest of the unsafe drivers along with the responsible people who had a random accident (41,059 total??higher?), then also include those murderous family members and previous acquaintances (5,427) and you are 57 times more likely to die at the hands of one of the above mentioned than you are by a random robber (731), burglar (61), rapist (15), and carjacker/car thief (11) combined! That means statistically the average American must witness 57 of those other victims of circumstance before likely coming across just one killed by the random criminal. Is it me, or is it that the more you research into the actual numbers, the less that C.S.I. investigator job seems so incredible?