Wow, Stiff punishment? Really?

[pianoman9701]

My thoughts on the topic...

If this is their first offense then the penalty fits the crime.  They will now have a criminal record that will follow them for a while (depending on their age). 

The real problem is that people with criminal histories don't care how much you fine them or how long their stay in county jail is.   They probably won't pay the fine anyway.  Put them in jail and the tax payers have to pay for them.  It is a loose loose system.  If they prove to be habitual offenders they should be taken to pasture and shot......but that is not politically correct either.  Our criminal system is broken.  How do you punish someone, hold them accountable, and still give them a chance to be productive members of society? 

Long story short....If this is their first offense, the punishment is suitable and with any luck it will not follow them for the rest of their life.   If it does they will likely continue to poach as they have no opportunity to do it legally.   

Second offense....well can't fix stupid so we should just cleanse the jean pool.   

I can almost guarantee this isn't their first offense. It's only the first time they've been caught. I agree that they shouldn't spend much jail time for a first offense, but I think that not only should they lose their hunting privileges, they should lose the guns used in the act, be fined stiff penalties, and have to take Hunter Education over again before they're allowed to hunt. And, if the penalties are so stiff, it "forces them to poach again" (kind of a ridiculous argument), then the next time, they should be charged with felonies.

I don't support that you go soft on crime just because criminals don't care what the penalty is. Especially with wildlife infractions, when they see the cost of getting caught, they're going to be much less likely to reoffend. AND, others will take note that this isn't taken lightly by LE.

[Knocker of rocks]

How does this fit in with the need for a stiff sentance

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021008237_animalsexxml.html

[pianoman9701]

How does this fit in with the need for a stiff sentance

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021008237_animalsexxml.html

Unbelievable.

[danderson]

I agree with most of the comments here that these two young men might have been let off easy, but not having all the details of there punishment we cant be certain of all the facts, one thing that I can surmise is that they almost certainly had not been through a Hunter Education class or if they had been they have a total disregard for hunting ethics and sportmanship.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

If it was the guy's first offense then I think two days in jail and community service isn't a bad punishment. It is more then a lot of others that I have heard. 

I don't think its nearly enough.

People need to be "scared" to poach because of the punishment. Not "Oh hey lets just hope we don't get caught".

While 2 days seems light for deliberately breaking just about any law,  the scare them out of breaking the law scenario doesn't really work either. (I haven't seen the death penalty "scare" anyone from committing murder. It just insures no repeat offenders) We need penalties that fit the crime. What's a first time DUI conviction get you in Washington? ( 1 day jail (if BAC is less than .15%); 2 days jail (if BAC is .15% or greater) I personally find that a more heinous crime than poaching a deer, just to put this 2 day sentence in perspective.

[Knocker of rocks]

If it was the guy's first offense then I think two days in jail and community service isn't a bad punishment. It is more then a lot of others that I have heard. 

I don't think its nearly enough.

People need to be "scared" to poach because of the punishment. Not "Oh hey lets just hope we don't get caught".

While 2 days seems light for deliberately breaking just about any law,  the scare them out of breaking the law scenario doesn't really work either. (I haven't seen the death penalty "scare" anyone from committing murder. It just insures no repeat offenders) We need penalties that fit the crime. What's a first time DUI conviction get you in Washington? ( 1 day jail (if BAC is less than .15%); 2 days jail (if BAC is .15% or greater) I personally find that a more heinous crime than poaching a deer, just to put this 2 day sentence in perspective.

And our Legislature between battles to impliment gender neutral verbaige, has now stiffened the DUI laws to make the fourth DUI a felony, versus the fifth.

How about doing something, and making the first or second DUI a felony

[Mudman]

If first dui was a felony hunting would all be archery!  ALOT of people have had a dui.  Sounds like great gun control!!!

[jrebel]

My thoughts on the topic...

If this is their first offense then the penalty fits the crime.  They will now have a criminal record that will follow them for a while (depending on their age). 

The real problem is that people with criminal histories don't care how much you fine them or how long their stay in county jail is.   They probably won't pay the fine anyway.  Put them in jail and the tax payers have to pay for them.  It is a loose loose system.  If they prove to be habitual offenders they should be taken to pasture and shot......but that is not politically correct either.  Our criminal system is broken.  How do you punish someone, hold them accountable, and still give them a chance to be productive members of society? 

Long story short....If this is their first offense, the punishment is suitable and with any luck it will not follow them for the rest of their life.   If it does they will likely continue to poach as they have no opportunity to do it legally.   

Second offense....well can't fix stupid so we should just cleanse the jean pool.   

I can almost guarantee this isn't their first offense. It's only the first time they've been caught. I agree that they shouldn't spend much jail time for a first offense, but I think that not only should they lose their hunting privileges, they should lose the guns used in the act, be fined stiff penalties, and have to take Hunter Education over again before they're allowed to hunt. And, if the penalties are so stiff, it "forces them to poach again" (kind of a ridiculous argument), then the next time, they should be charged with felonies.

I don't support that you go soft on crime just because criminals don't care what the penalty is. Especially with wildlife infractions, when they see the cost of getting caught, they're going to be much less likely to re offend. AND, others will take note that this isn't taken lightly by LE.

All I am saying is a guy (kid / young man) can be ruined if it were always black and white.  We don't know if it was the first or second or 100th time........but if indeed they had a lapse in judgment, as many of us have at somepoint in our life, they shouldn't be hung at the cross for a fist offense.  With the information given we have to assume it is their first attempt, we have no proof otherwise.  Right?? 

With that being said, I don't think my argument is ridiculous.   If you label someone in our society and you take away all their rights with a first offense then what makes you think they care if they get caught again??  They have already lost everything so they have nothing else to loose. 

Though I agree the penalties should be stiff, I don't believe the punishment for a first offense should result in an insurmountable hurdle that otherwise ruins and labels a person for life. 

Should a person caught speeding for the first time loose their license for a year and pay a $5,000 fine? 

Johnny

[pianoman9701]

No, the punishment should fit the crime. They committed a serious crime. They should pay dearly for it and maybe they won't the next time. Or, maybe it'll make someone else take pause before they do the same thing. Yes, everyone has lapses of judgment. But, when those lapses of judgment break the law and you get caught, you must pay the penalty. It's called keeping social order.

[Knocker of rocks]

If first dui was a felony hunting would all be archery!  ALOT of people have had a dui.  Sounds like great gun control!!!

This isn't about the perps hunting rights, this is about keeping drunks off the roads.

[elk247]

If first dui was a felony hunting would all be archery!  ALOT of people have had a dui.  Sounds like great gun control!!!

This isn't about the perps hunting rights, this is about keeping drunks off the roads.

Thats an entirely different topic. THIS thread is about poaching. My vote is make it hurt so bad the first time that no one will reoffend. I don't think someones life need to be ruined to accomplish that.

[jrebel]

No, the punishment should fit the crime. They committed a serious crime. They should pay dearly for it and maybe they won't the next time. Or, maybe it'll make someone else take pause before they do the same thing. Yes, everyone has lapses of judgment. But, when those lapses of judgment break the law and you get caught, you must pay the penalty. It's called keeping social order.

I guess that is where we dissagree....A fine, two days in jail and a criminal history is pretty severe to me (this is assuming they recieved no other punishment that may not have been mentioned).  Now, if they don't learn their lesson and are caught poaching again they should pay a much harsher penalty. 

They shot a deer out of season.....YES SERIOUS, but not death row worthy.   Especially on a first offense.

[JODakota]

My thoughts on the topic...

If this is their first offense then the penalty fits the crime.  They will now have a criminal record that will follow them for a while (depending on their age). 

The real problem is that people with criminal histories don't care how much you fine them or how long their stay in county jail is.   They probably won't pay the fine anyway.  Put them in jail and the tax payers have to pay for them.  It is a loose loose system.  If they prove to be habitual offenders they should be taken to pasture and shot......but that is not politically correct either.  Our criminal system is broken.  How do you punish someone, hold them accountable, and still give them a chance to be productive members of society? 

Long story short....If this is their first offense, the punishment is suitable and with any luck it will not follow them for the rest of their life.   If it does they will likely continue to poach as they have no opportunity to do it legally.   

Second offense....well can't fix stupid so we should just cleanse the jean pool.   

I can almost guarantee this isn't their first offense. It's only the first time they've been caught. I agree that they shouldn't spend much jail time for a first offense, but I think that not only should they lose their hunting privileges, they should lose the guns used in the act, be fined stiff penalties, and have to take Hunter Education over again before they're allowed to hunt. And, if the penalties are so stiff, it "forces them to poach again" (kind of a ridiculous argument), then the next time, they should be charged with felonies.

I don't support that you go soft on crime just because criminals don't care what the penalty is. Especially with wildlife infractions, when they see the cost of getting caught, they're going to be much less likely to re offend. AND, others will take note that this isn't taken lightly by LE.

All I am saying is a guy (kid / young man) can be ruined if it were always black and white.  We don't know if it was the first or second or 100th time........but if indeed they had a lapse in judgment, as many of us have at somepoint in our life, they shouldn't be hung at the cross for a fist offense.  With the information given we have to assume it is their first attempt, we have no proof otherwise.  Right?? 

With that being said, I don't think my argument is ridiculous.   If you label someone in our society and you take away all their rights with a first offense then what makes you think they care if they get caught again??  They have already lost everything so they have nothing else to loose. 

Though I agree the penalties should be stiff, I don't believe the punishment for a first offense should result in an insurmountable hurdle that otherwise ruins and labels a person for life. 

Should a person caught speeding for the first time loose their license for a year and pay a $5,000 fine? 

Johnny

I found this post very wise and right on the money. This isn't communist Russia.

[Bob33]

The circumstances are that the animal was essentially a well known neighborhood pet, the animal was shot while trespassing on private land, the animal is considered a trophy, and the men bragged about their kill to others including to a WDFW enforcement officer. 

If this was simply a mere lapse in judgment, they need a judgment readjustment.

They made several decisions along the way, any of which would most likely have mitigated the outcome. They chose to trespass. They chose to kill an animal without a valid license and tag. They chose to not report it. They chose to brag about it.

We all make mistakes, and when we do there are often consequences. Two days in jail seems reasonable considering the facts.

[Shooter]

2 days in jail, $2500 in fines and 5 years loss of hunting privileges. Mandatory second offense 1 year in jail, $10,000 in fines and lifetime loss of hunting privileges. 3rd offense, 3 strikes an your out!