Bill Description: House Bill 125 would make participating in a riot a felony if the riot results in physical injury to a person. 

Rating: -1

Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?

House Bill 125 would amend Section 18-6402, Idaho Code, to say that "a riot is a felony if … it results in physical injury to any person." It would also add a penalty of "imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than five (5) years or a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both such fine and imprisonment."

There are two problems worth noting here. The first is the use of the term "physical injury to any person." In other bills and sections of code, enhanced penalties are often tied to the infliction of significant harm. Senate Bill 1019, for example, which deals with swatting, make the crime a felony if it results in "great bodily harm, permanent disfigurement, or permanent disability" to someone. Without such limitations, even a scraped knee could trigger the felony enhancement proposed in House Bill 125.

The second problem deals with the existing definition of a riot. Section 18-6401, Idaho Code, defines a riot as "any action, use of force or violence, or threat thereof, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use such force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two (2) or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, which results in physical injury to any person; or damage or destruction to public or private property; or a disturbance of the public peace."

It is important to note the use of the word "or" throughout the definition. If you are in a group that begins disturbing the peace and some other participant in the group causes physical injury to any person (including another participant), you could be found guilty of a felony even if you did not inflict harm on anyone yourself. 

It is appropriate to hold people accountable when they inflict harm on others, but automatic enhancements of crimes with overly broad definitions serve the interests of prosecutors, not of justice. 

(-1)