Idaho gun bill will only endanger college students


In his Feb. 28 op-ed in The New York Times, Greg Hampikian, a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University, wrote satirically about the recent push in Idaho to allow students on public university campuses to arm themselves. One of the numerous relevant points Hampikian makes concerns the ability of armed individuals to designate certain offenses as “de facto capital crimes.” The proliferation of these kinds of capital “sentences” is one of the most unjust facets of increased gun ownership and use in the United States.

Irene Wang | Daily Trojan

Irene Wang | Daily Trojan

 

The radical shift in the last few decades has been from duty to retreat laws, which require victims of assault to flee where possible, to expansive Stand Your Ground laws, which allow nearly unrestricted use of lethal force when defending oneself or one’s property. Look no further than the case of Trayvon Martin or the other 1,031 “justifiable” homicides from 2006 to 2010, according to the Violence Policy Center. Unfortunately, where the obligation had once been to use caution where possible and retreat without escalating the confrontation, now gun owners are allowed to arm themselves, becoming judge, jury and executioner in dispensing lethal force.

The problem with allowing college students — or anyone for that matter — to carry weapons to “protect” themselves is that it allows for people who are fearing for their lives to make split-second decisions that normally take years, if not decades, of debate and ruling in the current U.S. penal system. Whether or not individuals are in favor of the death penalty, it is undeniable that under the current justice system, the process through which an accused person would be arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced to death, have the decision appealed and then finally be executed by the state is a years-long process involving numerous lawyers and opportunities for appeal. Ideally, by the time a person convicted of a capital crime is executed, there should be no shred of doubt that that person is guilty. Of course, even now, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Innocence Project argue that there can be no certainty in capital cases and such irreversible punishment is too harsh for a certainty-free legal system. These open-carry laws and Stand Your Ground defenses condense that entire legal system of safeguards, designed to protect American liberty, to a split-second decision made by people hyped up on fear and adrenaline.

Furthermore, these kinds of castle doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws allow for the use of lethal force for crimes that would not normally merit the death penalty under Idaho state law. Idaho allows for capital punishment in cases of first-degree murder with aggravating factors, aggravated kidnapping and perjury that causes the execution of an innocent person. The current castle doctrine in place in Idaho allows for the use of deadly force against home invaders. Home invasion does not warrant the death penalty under Idaho law — nor should it — but homeowners with guns are allowed to make that decision without giving due process to offenders.

Students for Concealed Carry wrote a response to the op-ed by Hampikian, which, besides missing the obviously satirical nature of the piece, also failed to address these key concerns. Published on March 3, the piece states that there need to be penalties harsher than expulsion from the university applicable to anyone who might attempt to assault students at the university.

“The fact that expulsion is the harshest penalty is precisely the problem,” wrote Kurt Mueller, the author of the piece. “Why on earth would a person intent on committing a crime of violence using a firearm or similar non-firearm based force care the least whit about the potential academic consequences?”

Mueller misses the obvious disincentives that the federal and state penal systems offer to discourage wanton violence on campus. Idaho is one of the states in which the death penalty is still legal, which is the harshest punishment available for offenders in the United States. Though Mueller would like students and faculty to take the death penalty into their own hands in miniscule time increments, other penalties would apply to anyone deranged enough to attack people in Idaho. Hampikian is simply referring to the harshest penalty under the university’s system of justice, which should be expulsion and not imprisonment or execution, and which should come from the actual Idaho penal system.

College students should not be given the ability to expand capital punishment, determine capital offenses or execute possible offenders without due process.

 

Dan Morgan-Russell is a sophomore majoring in international relations (global business).

 

10 replies
  1. Radio Randy
    Radio Randy says:

    Why do these people keep equating the “Stand Your Ground” law and the Martin case? Zimmerman had nowhere to run with Trayvon on top of him, trying to bash his brains into the sidewalk. A lot of people poo-poo the story, but they weren’t there, were they?
    The Virginia Tech shootings are another favorite argument. Just think, if just a few students were armed…isn’t there even a slight chance that the overall carnage could have been reduced?
    How about Sandy Hook? If only the principal of that school had been armed, Lanza may have ended the attack by shooting himself as he did after the police arrived. Oh, and the principal would likely still be alive.
    Regardless of the outcome of Idaho’s new law, the debate will go on. Facts will go up against lies (with the facts taking a beating because the lies are more intriguing), but you will never satisfy the Progressive population. Not, at least, until they come to realize that you might just be able to save their butts in a crisis.

  2. James Henderson
    James Henderson says:

    This article is nonsense. I’m not a right winger. I support gay marriage, separation of church and state, “Obamacare,” and even voted for Obama. However, I refuse to ever vote Democrat because of the left’s irrational logic on gun issues.

    If someone pulls a gun and starts shooting students, they always know they are in a gun free zone. They know it is open season on their victims. This is why the “gun free” cities like Chicago and D.C. have such a high gun murder rate… the criminals know they are the only ones with the guns, except for the cops which are 5-10 minutes away.

    If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun, they should fear getting shot by their victims.

    As concealed carry has become more common over the past 3 decades, gun homicide rates have gone down almost 50%, except in “gun free zones/cities” where only the criminals have the guns.

    If someone pulls a gun on my family are friends, they will get shot, in the head, instantly, and they will die, and the world will be a better place for it.

    • Radio Randy
      Radio Randy says:

      You refuse to “ever” vote Democrat? Umm, did you happen to notice what ticket Obama was running under?
      P.S. Obama has shown irrational logic on gun issues for as long as he’s been in politics, so it’s nothing new for him.

      • Radio Randy
        Radio Randy says:

        Oh, I see my reply was too late. You don’t “register” Democrat but you vote Democrat. There’s a difference?

  3. Liberty Minded
    Liberty Minded says:

    Remember that the authority of the police comes from the people. Each person in the USA has the right to defend their person and property.

    We allow the police to kill the mentally ill in Fullerton without trial. The officer only lost his job. If armed and armored police can kill because they think they are threatened by an unarmed homeless man, then ordinary people can carry guns for self defense.

  4. TexTopCat
    TexTopCat says:

    The logic in the article has one very important flaw. The criminal that attacks the good guy with a gun is the person that causes the event. If you attack someone, you made the decision that you life is worth less than your crime. So, lets put the blame on the criminal. If the criminal does not want to be shot, and maybe killed, do not attack. Is that so hard to understand?

  5. Ras
    Ras says:

    If a girl walking home alone late at night is accosted by a gang of men intent on gang-raping her, would she have the right to shoot her attackers or does the author of this article think lethal force is not justified given the fact the attackers are not trying to kill her but “just” rape her? Also, does the girl first have to try and outrun her attackers first, thus turning her back on them and losing precious tactical advantage, or can she pull out her weapon and stand her ground and try to compel the attackers to disperse?

    • S.A.White
      S.A.White says:

      Well said Ras.
      Everyone needs to remember that just because we carry, does not mean we must destroy life.
      We can preserve life by preventing the crime in the first place and if in fact the moron perpetrating the crime is not deterred, we are not always forced to take head shots (or other vital organs intentionally). With proper training and practice, you can disable your attackers and bring them to justice, while simultaneously preventing said rape or other violent personal crime.

      Keep in mind: guns don’t kill, careless or well trained people do; with or without guns. The guns just level the playing field for those of us who might otherwise be victims. So, stop treading on our personal freedoms and ability to not only feel safe; but to actually be safe.

Comments are closed.