Shootings News Weekly asks the question: "Would a Fabulously Bedazzled Pistol Play Better in a Jury Trial?" It's not a serious question--the idea of a jury being more lenient with someone sporting a bedazzled pistol is a type of straw man argument using the absurdity of the bedazzled pistol to attack the more reasonable statement in "a TFBtv video where the argument was made that using a mini-14 instead of an AR-15 in a home defense situation has historically had better favor in court." I believe the video to which the author is referring is "8 Reasons Why the Ruger Mini-14 is Better Than the AR15."
The comparison of the Mini-14 versus the AR15 is not just random: there was an actual study, using mock juries, looking at the sentences given by juries where the supposed homeowner used one or the other of these weapons. (See, "Will It Hurt Me In Court? Weapons Issues and the Fears of the Legally Armed Citizen" by Glenn E. Meyer, Ph.D. (2009)). The first set of research included several types of weapons: a Mini-14 with a plain wooden stock and no flash hider, an AR15, a Winchester 1300 Defender shotgun, a Winchester over/under shotgun, a Glock 19 pistol, and an S&W 642 revolver. Meyer reports:
Women delivered the homeowner defendants higher sentences than men (Male average = 3.9 years and female average = 5.7 years). Importantly the average recommended sentence when the homeowner used the AR-15 weapon was 7.2 years for male subjects and 8.5 for females. This was significantly higher than any of the other gun types. The handguns had the lowest recommended sentences (in the two to four year range).
Next:
We replicated the experiment with students from the local community college who were older and had different socio-economic status and life experiences than liberal arts students. We focused on two gun scenarios, the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14. Both are equally potent but the latter looks less aggressive to some. We also analyzed judgment of guilt versus innocence. In direct comparison – the AR-15 yielded significantly longer mean recommended sentences in the order of seven to nine years as compared to the Ruger (approximately two and a half years). On the verdict side, the percent of guilty judgments was approximately 65% for the AR-15 vs. 45% for the Ruger.
And:
In the third and final experiment of the burglary series we added a female shooter to the mix. ...
* * *
We found the overall effect of gun type was significant. AR-15 shooters were given longer sentences. The most telling finding was that female mock jurors gave female AR-15 shooters the harshest sentences – a mean of approximately eight years as compared to a male average of five and a half years. In comparison, the lowest average recommended sentence was for a male shooting a Ruger Mini – about two and a half years. Thus, gun type and gender could be a potent combination in sentencing.
It's been a long time since that article came out. Will juries have changed much? I suspect that for those living in urban areas, the answer is "probably not".
More:
- Although I haven't watched the video, James Reeves also discusses the foregoing study in his video: "Do Juries Actually Hate the AR-15?"
- "When Owning an AK-47 Becomes a Courtroom Liability"--The Truth About Guns. Citing some cases where mere possession of the AK, even if not used in the shooting, seemed to sway the jury.
- Another video from James Reeves: "How the AK-47 Can Send You to Prison: AK Problems in Self-Defense Cases."
- And another: "How Gun Accessories Can Send You to Prison."
No comments:
Post a Comment