June 2, 2011

"Criminals in Wisconsin can turn to family members to hide murder guns, bloody clothes and other evidence..."

"... and prosecutors are powerless to punish those family members under current state law.... Wisconsin's version is among the most liberal harboring felon laws in the country.... A dozen other states have exceptions for family members, but Wisconsin exempts more family members and allows them to even plant false evidence without fear of prosecution."

21 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

Wow. What could go wrong?

It is like a "family" privilege.

Scott M said...

I did not know there were ANY states with such exemptions. I'm very curious as the reasons why.

traditionalguy said...

Maybe this was left over from Prohibition days when hiding smuggled liquor was a necessary part of Wisconsin's economy?

edutcher said...

Just a hunch, but did Democrats write that law?

Marshal said...

Bold. Lefties eyes will pop out they'll scream racism so loud.

Bryan C said...

When does this sort of law kick in? The suspect in the commission of a crime isn't actually a felon until after they're convicted, right? At what point can family members be shown to have been harboring a felon?

MadisonMan said...

Please, do NOT call it "Joey's Law". A law should rise or fall on its merits (and this one has plenty), not as a commemorative device or as a law with a fancypants acronym.

BJM said...

There's an OJ joke here...but that'd be racist.

wv=stabr ...even captcha bots think he did it.

PatHMV said...

I don't have a problem with not making a criminal out of a mother who lets her son stay at her house, even if the police are looking for him, but taking active steps to keep the police from finding him is a different thing altogether.

C R Krieger said...

Why is this "the most liberal"?  What makes weak laws in THIS area "liberal"?  And is that Classical Liberals or Progressives.

I think we should go to Versailles, burn down the Tennis Court, plow under the ashes and then put a circular swimming pool on top of what remains.  More often than not the current labels add little to the discussion—IMHO.

I am a registered Republican and my Ward Chairman.

And, my final thought for the moment.  Are Cops in Wisconsin allowed to lie to the suspect during interrogation?

Regards  —  Cliff

jimbino said...

As a single non-breeder, I take serious objection to the exemption for family members.

If I ever find it necessary to shoot one of them, I'll just have to shoot the whole fandamily.

ndspinelli said...

Interesting article. Too bad that Vegas hotel incident that landed OJ in prison didn't happen here. He could have given the gun to his son, Kato Kaelin, and beat his second rap.

A. Shmendrik said...

Even if it is Cody Jarrett?

Jose_K said...

Its common in civil law countries. venezuela constitution extend the equivalent of 5th anmedmnet to de facto couples parentes and descendants.
And as soon is there no prvious agreement them and friends cand protect a felon without been accused of complicity o covering them,
And is normal , or do you really expect that a mother will hand her son to the police? And yes even covering actively covering him.
Many here made me remember the preposterous Kant idea that forbid to lie to a murderer ,
justly mocked by Thomas De Quincey

Had i been the brother of the Unabomber he would be on the run.

BJM said...

I thought aiding & abetting a suspect after the fact made one an accessory to the crime.

Are there permissible degrees of abetting? Can mom drive the getaway car, or reload for Junior as he shoots it out with the cops from the family home?

What exactly is the point of having laws if they aren't equally applied? Oh. Never mind, it's all doubleplus good.

Big Mike said...

I have a serious problem with family members getting a pass for planting false evidence. Why should this be allowed anywhere?

Synova said...

How is this rule that favors criminals any different, really, than rules about evidence and warrants and miranda rights?

chuck b. said...

Murder guns.

Tibore said...

From the comments at the linked article:
"Its a bad law period..Family will continue to come over civic duty.. Its humanistic instincts.what will it do to prevent crimes..nothing...the bill is a fail and is unnecessary. Another unnecessary bill being passed."

Boy, is that ever missing the point. By the time the family memeber is involved in hiding evidence, the original crime has already been committed. The change in the bill is aimed at people - family members - standing in the way of the investigation. Or in other words, to people exacerbating the crime by interfering with the law-enforcement followup activities.

Although I have to admit, the part of me that sometimes leans towards libertarianism hopes that reasonable provisions are made for folks who don't realize they were hiding evidence, or were duped into doing so. But aside from that, I'm all for punishing people who deliberately inhibit investigation.

Jeff Hall said...

Since more liberal harboring laws don't seem to have turned Wisconson into a dystopian narco-state, maybe the laws in the rest of the country are too harsh.

vet66 said...

FYI: There are only two states that proudly display "RIGHT DENIED" for carrying a concealed weapon much less honoring permits from other states. They are Illinois and Wisconsin. 32 states honor my permit while the usual suspects don't honor my permit, namely, the east coast and west coast and other bastions of the left.

The fact that a felon could bushwhack me and my family for whatever reason and hide the evidence with a family member doesn't surprise me.