Available Soon: Request your printed copies of the Idaho Freedom Index mailed to you!
Request Your Copies
Note to Dustin: This is currently only visible to logged in users for testing.
Click Me!
video could not be found

House Bill 183 — Assault of a peace officer, penalty (-2)

House Bill 183 — Assault of a peace officer, penalty (-2)

by
Parrish Miller
February 13, 2025

Bill Description: House Bill 183 would create enhanced penalties, including mandatory minimums, for crimes against certain individuals based on their employment. 

Rating: -2

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 183 would amend Section 18-915, Idaho Code, to create an enhanced penalty of up to life in prison, including a mandatory minimum of 15 years imprisonment, for "committing any crime in this chapter against a peace officer." 

The bill would also amend Section 18-4004, Idaho Code, to increase the mandatory minimum period of incarceration for murder of a peace officer from 10 years to 35 years. 

The chapter referenced in the phrase, "committing any crime in this chapter" is Chapter 9, Title 18, Idaho Code, which defines assault and battery. Of note, this chapter includes not just severe felonies but also simple assault and battery and other misdemeanors such as domestic assault.

The fundamental problem with all mandatory minimum laws is that it is always possible for extenuating circumstances in a specific case to make a mandatory minimum sentence manifestly unjust. This means that mandatory minimum sentencing laws fundamentally subvert the notion of justice, which requires broad judicial discretion regarding sentencing.

With this bill, specifically, such speculation is not required because a sentence of 15 years imprisonment for a misdemeanor is manifestly unjust no matter the identity or employment of the victim.

(-1)

Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws which discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?

The enhanced penalties and mandatory minimums created by House Bill 183 would apply only to crimes committed against a peace officer.

Equal protection under the law is a foundational principle of Western justice, yet House Bill 183 compounds the inequality of treating crimes as more serious based on the profession of the victim. Treating members of some professions as a protected class and then declaring that someone who violates the rights of individuals in that class has committed a more severe crime violates the principle of equality under the law. 

(-1)

View Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Idaho Freedom Foundation
802 W. Bannock Street, Suite 405, Boise, Idaho 83702
p 208.258.2280 | e [email protected]
COPYRIGHT © 2025 Idaho freedom Foundation
magnifiercrossmenucross-circle linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram