Is a Felony Conviction a Form of Retributive Justice

[crunchman]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Arizona


First, was the Felony "tag" designed to be retributive in nature or has it just become that due to modern technology with respect to background checks, insurance companies,etc.

[BOR]

Before the Industial age, it was not even conceived man could travel by rail, much less by computer.

This is the age of science and technological progress.

Misdemeanors are just as visible in a background check as felonies are, the "stigma" of a felony is hard to shake.

[crunchman]

Exactly, but time was when F was only given to Serious or Heinous crimes, now it seems MUCH easier to get one, makes no sense!

[BOR]

Exactly, but time was when F was only given to Serious or Heinous crimes, now it seems MUCH easier to get one, makes no sense!

My state, Ohio has 5 levels of felonies. I can't pinpoint it without checking, but we only had a level 4 felony until the Code was revised.

I agree, some crimes are not of a level to be a felony, but??

[cdwjava]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Arizona


First, was the Felony "tag" designed to be retributive in nature or has it just become that due to modern technology with respect to background checks, insurance companies,etc.

A felony is usually a term that designates the severity of an offense. In many instances, a felony offense includes potential penalties of more than one year in jail/prison and/or a hefty a fine over a particular dollar amount. Misdemeanors and lesser offenses tend to be punishable by one year or less in a county jail and smaller fines.

These offenses and the terms to describe them pre-date the advent of computers and even telephones by ... well, centuries.

[crunchman]

In Arizona 6 levels, I actually was convicted of a class 4 for a DUI, now I am not sure I can have it set-aside (expunged) when probation is complete, apparently they can now classify the car itself as a "dangerous instrument" and refuse to "set-aside" even though there is obviously no intent to cause harm to anyone.Now, I understand peoples' opinion regarding DUI, don't nessesarily agree with all of it because it's been so politicized, I did stop drinking 3 yrs ago so that helped but I have done 6-months in county jail, 3-yrs without a D.L., $10,000 in fines, interlock,3-yrs probation, alcohol testing,etc,etc. Now, they wanna tell me I have to have this on my record for life?? Never has an accident.I'm really scared I might just go postal on these people.I mean if there is a case of punishment not fitting the crime this must be one.I don't see how having more Felons could be a good thing.Rant over.

[BOR]

Do you mean the 1st offense DUI was a felony 4 or did you have others before?

If you had others, a penalty can be enhanced (Sentence enhancement) to a higher classification, even though the same act was/may have been a misdemeanor before.

The only way to know for sure, and not rely on internet info, it is consult an attorney to see if it can be expunged, HOWEVER, don't be surprised if expunction is for a 1st time offender only.

[crunchman]

A felony is usually a term that designates the severity of an offense. In many instances, a felony offense includes potential penalties of more than one year in jail/prison and/or a hefty a fine over a particular dollar amount. Misdemeanors and lesser offenses tend to be punishable by one year or less in a county jail and smaller fines.

These offenses and the terms to describe them pre-date the advent of computers and even telephones by ... well, centuries.

I realise these felony offenses go way back to the king of Britain and involved property seizure and such, my point is their signifigance is compounded by technology coupled with the fact that people appear ignorant about how effectively we prosecute crime in the US, the general consensus is we are soft on crime, nonsense! My question would be do we really need the felony designation if It just damages people more than it ever was intended too, perhaps I am just extrodinarily naive !

The DUI was a felony because I was required to have an interlock device and did not.

A.R.S. 13-907 states any defendant (first time felon, which I am, or course) can apply to have the conviction "set-aside", they will not do it for violent offenses or offenses the involve deadly weapons or "dangerous instruments" so apparently the judge could still refuse me based on the this dangerous instruments wording.So, apparently "Intent" is not part of the equation, which seems odd, I say that because driving in and of itself is inheirently dangerous, I am not sure, I'm curious to find out what Judges' tendencies are on this.

[cdwjava]

I realise these felony offenses go way back to the king of Britain and involved property seizure and such, my point is their signifigance is compounded by technology coupled with the fact that people appear ignorant about how effectively we prosecute crime in the US, the general consensus is we are soft on crime, nonsense! My question would be do we really need the felony designation if It just damages people more than it ever was intended too, perhaps I am just extrodinarily naive !

Yes, the delineation is important as it describes the severity of the offense. However, many felonies are pled down to misdemeanors so someone with a misdemeanor conviction may be just as much a threat as one with a felony as a result.

But, in general, these definitions are important.

And with regards to DUI offenses, yes, we are "soft" on these offenses when compared to many countries in Europe and elsewhere.

The DUI was a felony because I was required to have an interlock device and did not.

So, as BOR hypothesized, you had a number of priors. Had this been a first offense, then this offense would not have been a felony. But, since you apparently knowingly chose to disregard the restrictions placed upon you as a result of your previous unlawful activity you got caught and charged as a repeat offender - a "threat" to the community, so to speak.

I doubt any of us have a problem with your being charged with a felony on a repeat DUI.

A.R.S. 13-907 states any defendant (first time felon, which I am, or course) can apply to have the conviction "set-aside", they will not do it for violent offenses or offenses the involve deadly weapons or "dangerous instruments" so apparently the judge could still refuse me based on the this dangerous instruments wording.So, apparently "Intent" is not part of the equation, which seems odd, I say that because driving in and of itself is inheirently dangerous, I am not sure, I'm curious to find out what Judges' tendencies are on this.

What the judge "could" do may be different than what he WILL do. Have you applied for expungement?

If you are still on probation or parole, chances are you are not yet eligible anyway. I am sure you can Google the relevant AZ statutes for expungement.

[crunchman]

I have not applied for the set-aside, my priors have to do with alcohol and DUI only, nothing that I would consider "real Crime", I understand you feel differently, no need to elaborate.I did quit drinking 3-yrs ago which obviously was thr root of thr problem. ARS 13-907 does mention prior felonies but not prior misdemeanors.If you prior felonies you must wait 2 yrs to apply, misdemeanors upon completion of probation.