Should a person convicted of a felony receive a tougher sentence if he wore a bulletproof vest during commission of the crime’! A New York Democratic congressman A veteran of 23 years on that city’s police department thinks so and his interesting proposal ought to receive serious debate. Specifically. Rep. Mario Biaggi’s bill (H. R. 55591 would impose mandatory minimum penalties of 1 to 10 years for the first offense and 2 to 25 years for a second or subsequent offense e “in addition to any sentence imposed for the original crime.” , By coincidence the bill was introduced the same day the FBI arrested Joseph “Mad Dog” Sullivan. suspect in at least seven murders who was heavily armed and wearing a bulletproof vest. The congressman cited last year’s ill-fated Brink’s robbery in Nyack. N. Y.. to support his contention that the criminal who uses protective body armor poses extra danger for law officers and society. “lt has been determined,” he said, “that a bulletproof vest worn by one of the robbers during the crime stopped a police bullet, allowing the criminal to retum the fire and kill two law enforcement officers before escaping.” The extent to which law officers themselves use a bulletproof covering varies depending on local regulations and assignments. Although Biaggi’s bill may be controversial in some respects, it should not be kissed off lightly. For one thing, doesn’t the wearing of a bulletproof vest imply premeditation by the person involved in a crime? Noting that he had seen criminals act with “virtual impunity” the New York lawmaker said: “We must do everything possible to fight their efforts. not assist them. Our obligation is to protect society, not the criminal.” He makes some good points.