ADVERTISEMENTS

Ok, I've been a one trick pony this summer, but come on, two years (20 months in real) in the slammer for former NY Giant Plaxico Burress in a plea bargain with NY prosecutors announced yesterday (read John Eligon's reporting in the NYTimes).  Burress carried a concealed weapon into a New York city nightclub, with the knowledge of the club's security personnel, but in violation of NY law (it would have been legal in Florida where Burress lives most of the year had he not allowed his concealed carry license to lapse).  Burress threatened know one intentionally, but the 40 caliber Glock slipped from his wasteband, inside his pants, and went off as he tried to grab it, wounding himself in the leg and narrowly missing a security guard. Burress could have faced a mandatory 3.5 year sentence for the illegal gun possession.  Prosecutors allowed him to plead to a lesser charge of attempted possession, but refused to consider less than 20 months of incarceration.  What public interest is served by sending the 32 year old father of two to prison for most of two years?

I'm not arguing Burress should be excused.  I'd prefer to live in a state like New York where carrying concealed weapons into bars is never permitted, but it is troubling that conduct legal in one state, warrants mandatory imprisonment for more than three years in another.  I appreciate that stars like Burress and Michael Vick make ideal platforms for deterrence signals.  But in this case Burress is a walking (lucky for him) advertisement for why carrying a weapon concealed in your pants is a bad idea.  The NFL star who helped the Giants win the 2008 Super Bowl had no criminal record, and poses no obvious risk of being a repeated risk to public safety.  In the meantime the state of New York will spending tens of thousands of dollars for each of the next two years to lock up Burress, while his young child and expected baby will lose their father.

Perhaps I'm giving too little weight to the deterrence argument.  From my reading of the literature, I'm willing to concede that tough laws on guns have helped New York drive down crime.  But where did we get 3.5 or even 2 years in prison from?  Would not putting Burress in jail for even a month or two, demonstrating that no one is above the law, fining him (on top of the loss at least temporarily of his NFL salary) have sent a message?  Considering again that for most of the word 10 to 20 years is the punishment for murder, these are harsh punishments for crimes in which no harmful injury nor intent to injure has been alleged.

It is tempting to blame this on racism.  After all, Michael Vick and Plaxio Burress are large black men who physically assault other men for a living.  Like prize-fighter Jack Johnson in his time, are these "scary" successful black men targets of racial animus?

I see it more as a misguided product of our social consensus on harsh punishment for violent crime.  Liberals and conservatives share consensus that violent crime deserves and requires lengthy imprisonment.  They disagree about the relationship between guns and violence; but they agree that gun crimes should be harshly punished.  The product is extremely harsh punishment for a man whose only act of violence has been to himself.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.