People....

Making something that is already illegal "SUPER ILLEGAL" doesn't enhance deterrence....but it does give prosecutors the ability to charge more people with longer sentences.

It doesn't help public safety and it will cost you a TON more money as a taxpayer

For instance, if someone attacks a police officer....that is already really illegal....and most juries and judges already hand out maximum penalties....there is no shortage of punishment for people who do this.

No need for 100 more laws for something that is already illegal

Do you really think anyone contemplating such behavior thinks juries and judges will go light on them?

Or that the charges are worth the risk?

If these things happen, and deterrence is real, why did they happen?

But what does happen when you pass all these new laws is that prosecutors will find ways to apply the new laws to more and more people and get longer and longer sentences and sillier and sillier penalties at massive cost with little public safety benefits

To clarify, research over a long period of time has demonstrated that LENGTH of punishment is not what deters....CERTAINTY of punishment deters...hence, adding "super crazy" penalties likely does not enhance deterrence.

Also, if deterrence works, it should not have happened

And I get that these laws are suggested to satisfy politics and signal to the base....However, there are real costs attached and if people looked beyond the short term satisfaction of - in this case - "owning the libs" they would see that there is real cost in dollars and lives

This is a bipartisan concern...the Democrats have done the same thing many times (see 94)...I have worked with a LOT of GOP folks to reform a lot of bad laws and mandatory minimums.

So, even if you want to own the libs, there are less costly and counterproductive ways to do it