Nor will Maryland's Laws Protect You.  

In fact, Maryland has a revolving door justice system with weak enforcement against actual criminals.

[ Home ], [ Declarations and Resolves ], [ Other Sources ]


     On January 3, 2000 the husband of Janice Lancaster killed her and himself while a bench warrent for his arrest went unprocessed by a Maryland clerk for 13 days.  This was the second such lapse in four months in Maryland.  Moreover, the courts have held that governments are not liable for their failures to protect.  Specifically, "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.  The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security .  .  ." (DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.).  So, Maryland law enforcement can release violent people back into society (see Pinder vs. Johnson for another case of gross failure of law enforcement that resulted in the deaths of three children) and Maryland officials have no responsibility for its negligence.

     Also, Maryland has permitted violence to flourish in Baltimore City and Prince Georges County for years with nearly 80% of murders being committed there at a rate 16 times (Baltimore) to 4 times (PG) that of nearby Montgomery County (see Maryland and Local Crime) .  Innocent citizens have suffered because of neglect of Maryland officials to attend to their duty.  This neglect is only made more obvious by the recent programs instituted in Richmond (Project Exile), Boston and New York City which have all shown that violence can be attacked by vigorous law enforcement programs.  What justifies this neglect of public safety in by Maryland's politicians?

     An analysis of crime in Baltimore finds rate of violent crimes in Baltimore has averaged more than 9 times that of Montgomery County for more than 23 years (see Maryland and Local Crime).  Maryland has ranked number one in robbery for the last four years according to data published by the FBI Uniform Crime Report.  The Sun has given an explanation for the poor crime rates in Baltimore.  In its article, "Tough gun law, timid enforcement," Caitlin Francke, 1/30/00, the Sun finds that less than one in four people charged with gun crimes will get the mandatory 5 year prison sentence already required by Maryland Law.  That article blames the revolving door justice system and enforcement failure for criminals being allowed to prey again and again on Maryland residents.

     Nor should Montgomery County be regarded as an ideal for Maryland.  The Washington Post article "Crime in Two Counties," Gareth Davis and David Muhlhausen, 12/9/99, page A45, reports that Montgomery has a violent crime rate of 2.4 times that of Fairfax County.  A difference which the Post claims should not be happening since "the two counties have almost identical socioeconomic profiles" and almost identical "racial, ethnic and family composition."  The Post recognizes the potential effects on crime because of the deterrence provide by Virginia's concealed firearm carry policy and the stronger Virginia enforcement policies.

     The family of slain police officer Bruce Prothero likewise blames the criminal justice system of Maryland for the loss of Sergeant Prothero (see Baltimore Channel 2 news report on 2/20/00 and The Sun Article, "Bail denied for Moore brothers" 2/21/00).  The killers of Sargent Prothero included one person awaiting trial on a previous murder charge.  The other killers all had prior criminal records also with light sentenses.

     As the article "Fugitives Hide In Big Backlog Of Warrants" (Washington Post, David B. Ottaway, 5/9/00, page A1) makes clear law enforcement agencies are ill-equipped to keep up with apprehending fugitives from justice.  "You can't walk down the street today without passing somebody who is wanted," the Post quotes William Bonk, a U.S. Marshals Service agent who formerly headed the D.C. Joint Fugitive Task Force of local and federal law enforcement agencies.

     The Post reports that Warrant backlogs have reached gargantuan proportions in some states and in the Washington metro area.  California has 2.5 million unserved warrants, while Washington state counts 300,000.  Massachusetts also has 300,000, with another 500,000 not yet recorded.  A small but not insignificant number are for serious crimes.  In California, for example, 2,600 are for homicides.

     In the District and its suburbs, police and sheriff's departments are being pushed to either serve or purge outstanding warrants for offenses ranging from murder to misdemeanors.  Prince George's County has 38,000; Montgomery County, 21,392; the District, 13,000; and Fairfax County, 4,100.  In nearby Baltimore, the city and county have a staggering backlog of 61,000.

     Given that the Maryland Police authorities are unable to apprehend known criminals including murderers, what justifies Maryland to assert that the people should not protect themselves?

     Obviously, the reason for Maryland's persistently high rate of crime is not the availability of guns -- that availability is the same in Baltimore City as in Montgomery County.  Francke's article and Sargent Prothero's family statement gives the reason as the breakdown of law enforcement.  The huge number of fugitives not apprehended, the revolving door justice given to those that blunder into police officers and are arrested and the general incompetence of Maryland political leadership to address the problem are the reasons for its high violent crime rates.

     The Federal government has shown great indifference to enforcement of existing laws except for some isolated cases such as Project Exile or the Boston Project.  Federal Prosecutions of Criminal Use of Guns from the year before President Clinton took office (1992) to 1998 show a decline from just over 7,000 to under 4,000.  The show-piece gun control act of the Clinton Administration is the Brady Background Check Bill passed in 1993.  While the Clinton administration brags of hundreds of thousands of criminal gun buyers turned away, they have failed to prosecute the hundreds of thousands of crimes being committed by those criminal buyers when they attempted to possess a gun. 

Other examples of Federal indifference to prosecutions of gun crimes is illustrated by the following table (Source: Cases Reported, Executive Office, United States Attorney):

A Record to Be Proud of?
The Clinton Administration's Record on Prosecutions of Gun Laws

VIOLATIONS 1996 1997 1998
Prosecutions Under the Brady Act (Background Checks)

0

0

1
Prosecutions for the Transfer of a Handgun or Ammunition to a Juvenile

9

5

6
Prosecutions for Possession of a Handgun or Ammunition by a Juvenile

27

3

8
Prosecutions for Possession or Discharge of a Firearm in a School Zone

4

5

8
Prosecution for Possession of Firearm by a Juvenile at School (More than 6,000 incidences reported)

4

5

8
Prosecutions for Firearm Possession by a Convicted Spouse Abuser

0

21

56

 


     Frustration has been expressed by the Senate with the Clinton administration neglect of firearm law violation enforcement as illustrated by the following passage from the SENATE RECORD VOTE ANALYSIS (106th Congress, 1st Session, May 14, 1999, 10:10 a.m., Page S-5326 Temp. Record, Vote No. 118 , JUVENILE JUSTICE/Enforcement, Penalties, Compromise Proposals):

 

     Ordinarily, when proposing tough enforcement penalties, we do not then feel compelled to add that Congress expects that the Executive Branch will enforce the law.  Such additions should not be necessary; nothing in the Constitution says that the Executive Branch will only enforce those laws that it likes.  We understand and agree that some prosecutorial discretion should be allowed in law enforcement, but that discretion should not be pushed to the point of ignoring the will of Congress. This Administration has gone that far.  The Clinton Justice Department, under Attorney General Reno, has sharply curtailed prosecution of felons that it knows have violated Federal laws against using firearms in crimes, and it has effectively refused to enforce many Federal firearm laws.  Though we have been pressing the Administration to switch course for years it has refused. We had high hopes this past year that it was about to relent due to the successes that the United States Attorney in Richmond has had with tough enforcement.  On her own initiative, United States Attorney Fahey decided to help Richmond, which was one of the most violent cities in the country, clamp down on gun crimes.  She advertised that the Federal Government would vigorously prosecute every felony that was committed with a gun and that was also a Federal offense, and she carried through on that promise.  That new program gave Richmond a 41-percent reduction in its murder rate and a 21- percent reduction in its violent crime rate. A couple of months ago, we scheduled a hearing to ask the Administration why it was not ordering the rest of the Justice Department to copy Ms. Fahey's lead.  President Clinton then met with Ms. Fahey and promised that he would order Attorney General Reno "to use every available tool to increase the prosecution of gun criminals."  We were delighted to hear the President make that public commitment.  Then, when Attorney General Reno appeared before our hearing, she told us that the President had not told her to use her authority to prosecute local gun crimes that violated Federal law, and she steadfastly refused to replicate the successful Richmond program in any area of the country.

 


Updated by Phil Lee on 6/5/00.  Contact pflee at wdn dot com (sorry for being obscure, but web mail address scavenge programs make this practice necessary).