Minimum sentences support
To the Editor:
I was surprised when the Northwest Herald came out against minimum sentences for gun crimes.
Liberals, for years, have been pining for more gun control, smaller capacity magazines, stricter registration, etc. Now when we talk about criminals, people such as Toni Preckwinkle seem to think we should let the judges have discretion over sentences.
Some of the arguments against minimum sentences are that the prisons are overcrowded, and it costs too much to keep prisoners behind bars. In one of the recent shootings this summer in Chicago, where 13 people were shot in a park after 10 p.m., the shooter was a convicted felon and had been recently caught with a loaded 9 mm handgun after a call to 9-1-1 of shots fired.
The presiding judge sentenced this felon, a known gang member in possession of an illegal gun, to boot camp. Really? Several weeks later, he’s shooting up a park full of innocent folks, including a toddler.
If it costs $40,000 to house a prisoner for one year, then what did emergency and follow-up care cost for the 13 people shot in the park? I grow tired of the gun-control folks talking about stricter regulations. Yet when we talk about the thugs that are causing all the angst, they suddenly become compassionate and make excuses for their violent criminal behavior.
I would venture the cost of incarceration is far less expensive than the medical care being provided for the victims of gun violence.
Lake in the Hills