[CTYankee]

It appears that Mr. Bird is being punished by a law that won't be found on the books. In criminal law, the "law of unintended consequences" often results in sentences that are disproportionate to the crime. I'll explain. Legislatures often respond to "hot button" issues by crafting statutes that permit or even mandate enhanced sentences when the criminal act includes certain "aggravating" factors. Often these statutes prevent judges from exercising discretion when fashioning sentences. It appears that Mr. Bird is caught in just such a situation. In his case a gun was part of the fact pattern. The New Hampshire Legislature previously enacted a law making this an aggravating factor. This resulted in a sentence way out of proportion to the crime. This is an issue that has been hotly debated for many years among academics, the judiciary and the criminal bar. What starts out as a "tough on crime" law ends up snaring average citizens in a legal nightmare.
In my view, in Mr. Birds case the prosecutor should have exercised her discretion by charging him in a way that would not yield such a draconian result.