Case study: Florida’s “10-20-Life” Law

at
Categories
Tags

Your state officials are considering ways to deter gun violence. The governor has hired you to provide an analysis of Florida’s 10-20-Life law. Your task is to produce a PowerPoint presentation of 10-12 slides that will provide lawmakers and the governor with the background and evaluation that will help them decide if this type of law is an effective deterrent.

Make use of the “notes” areas to elaborate on the brief points presented on the slide. Your presentation should cover the following points:

Describe the law’s purpose. How was this law a departure from what preceded it? What was the state of Florida hoping to accomplish with this law?
Explain whether this law illustrates the classical or positive perspective.
Assuming that a major goal of this law is deterrence, explain steps taken by the state to achieve general deterrence.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the law. Did it accomplish what was intended? Were there any negative outcomes? Be sure to cite valid research to support your conclusion
Last, describe the current state of this law, and make a reasoned recommendation for your governor.

Sample Solution

Florida’s “10-20-Life” law, is a criminal statute, § 775.087, that requires judges to order mandatory minimum sentences of 10 years, 20 years, or 25 years to life for the commission of certain convictions for felonies involving the use or attempted use of a firearm or destructive device. The penalties get even stiffer if the firearm used is an assault weapon or machine gun. In those cases, judges must impose a sentence of 15 years, 20 years, or 25 years to life. The 10-20-Life term of incarceration must be imposed in addition and consecutive to the sentence for the underlying felony conviction.

The law’s purpose was to prevent schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. The law, which was passed in Florida in 2022, is known as the “Parental Rights in Education” bill, or the “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

The law was a departure from what preceded it in two ways. First, it was the first law in the country to specifically ban the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity in elementary schools. Second, it was the first law to use the term “parental rights” in this context.

The state of Florida was hoping to accomplish two things with this law. First, they were hoping to prevent schools from teaching children about sexual orientation and gender identity at a young age. Second, they were hoping to give parents more control over what their children are taught in school.

The law has been met with criticism from LGBTQ+ advocates and educators, who argue that it is discriminatory and harmful to LGBTQ+ youth. They argue that the law will create a hostile environment for LGBTQ+ students and teachers, and that it will prevent them from getting the support they need.

The law has also been met with legal challenges. The ACLU of Florida has filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit is currently pending in court.

It is still too early to say what the long-term effects of the law will be. However, it is clear that the law has sparked a national debate about the role of schools in teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Here are some additional thoughts on the law:

  • The law is based on the false premise that teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity will harm children. There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, studies have shown that teaching about LGBTQ+ issues can actually be beneficial for children’s mental health and well-being.
  • The law is discriminatory. It singles out LGBTQ+ students and teachers for different treatment. This is a violation of the First Amendment, which protects the right to free speech and expression.
  • The law is harmful to LGBTQ+ youth. It creates a hostile environment for LGBTQ+ students and teachers, and it prevents them from getting the support they need.

The law is a clear example of how harmful it can be when politicians use their power to target LGBTQ+ people. It is important to speak out against this law and to fight for the rights of all students, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer