Three strikes

[lily]

I think after two chances, if you can't get your act together then you should spend the rest of your life in prison.

[rodeojones903]

I love it.

[Cobra]

For violent offences I'd say maybe, but just for drug possesion or petty theft no, not just for three times. Even a stupid student pulling the fire alarm in school is a felony, should that really count as a strike.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I voted no. There needs to be discretion as to whether the harsh punishment is necessary and whether the crimes match up with it. We don't need people with 2 convictions for burglary to be put away for 25 years for shoplifting, or possession of marijuana.

There's also the issue that the multiple offenses can occur within a short period. If the person is in and out of trouble from the time they're 18 to 35 then that's one thing, if they get busted 3 times between 20 and 21 or 22, then that needs to be taken into consideration.

There are too many exceptions I'd want that such a law would be pointless. If there were enough serious crimes, if they occured in different periods over a significant period of a persons life, if the crimes placed others in danger. They would need to have gone through a significant prison sentence (at least one year) and been put through some form of a rehabilitation program and it failed, or been offered multiple times and refused to participate. Laws such as this sound good and are good political moves, but I don't see it as a good thing.

[lily]

Cobra


Even a stupid student pulling the fire alarm in school is a felony, should that really count as a strike.

A stupid kid pulling a fire alarm is a felony? I'll take your word on it. A minor's record is sealed when they reach the age of 18. Their slate is clean.

alonzo

I voted no. There needs to be discretion as to whether the harsh punishment is necessary and whether the crimes match up with it. We don't need people with 2 convictions for burglary to be put away for 25 years for shoplifting.

In order for shoplifting to be considered a felony, it would have to be over a certain amount. I know shoplifting sounds like such a benign crime, but it hurts both retail and consumer.



There's also the issue that the multiple offenses can occur within a short period. If the person is in and out of trouble from the time they're 18 to 35 then that's one thing, if they get busted 3 times between 20 and 21 or 22, then that needs to be taken into consideration.
I don't undersand. Are you talking about the age difference or the time difference beteen crimes? Either way, they have already had two chances. What makes you think a third chance would make them change after spending time in prison?

[AlonzoMourning23]

In order for shoplifting to be considered a felony, it would have to be over a certain amount. I know shoplifting sounds like such a benign crime, but it hurts both retail and consumer.

My family ran a store and dealt with shoplifters regularly. You don't put away someone for years for that. Someone walks out with a couple of games or a dvd player, that's not something they should be locked up for 25 years for. Once we were even broken into and lost about 20k worth of stuff, but that's not a 25 year to life thing under most circumstances.

Though, here's some controversial cases. This may not be the norm (though some areas, like LA, try almost anyone who is eligible for three strikes as that, while others, like SF, do it on a case by case basis), but the fact that these are not thrown out is telling:

This man had one conviction for stealing a purse with 10 bucks in it, one attempted unarmed robbery and, 14 years later, he broke into a church kitchen. He was homeless and the priest usually gave him free food, sometimes even drove him places and let him sleep in the church. Well, he couldn't find the priest so he broke into the kitchen to get the food himself. He got 25 to life
link (http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/29/food.thief.3strikes/)

Kevin Weber, who got put away for stealing cookies:
link (http://www.cnn.com/US/Newsbriefs/9510/10-27/index.html)

Jerry Williams stole a slice of pizza:
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Dewayne_Williams)

As of 2003 there were about 350 in jail for 25-life for petty crimes link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/06/MN113328.DTL&type=printable)

There are too many problems, this issue itself isn't that hard to fix (though voters rejected such a fix in california), but the other problems I have just make such a law pointless. There needs to be discretion and cases need to be looked at on a case by case basis.


There's also the issue that the multiple offenses can occur within a short period. If the person is in and out of trouble from the time they're 18 to 35 then that's one thing, if they get busted 3 times between 20 and 21 or 22, then that needs to be taken into consideration.
I don't undersand. Are you talking about the age difference or the time difference beteen crimes? Either way, they have already had two chances. What makes you think a third chance would make them change after spending time in prison?
[/quote]

Age and time. A 20 year old will often be much different when they're 30, and a string of non violent crimes may be indicative of short term issues. That's why they should have to occur over a long period of time.

[Cobra]

A stupid kid pulling a fire alarm is a felony? I'll take your word on it. A minor's record is sealed when they reach the age of 18. Their slate is clean.
Yes it is, and there are 18 year olds in high school. One of whom just happened to be stupid enough to pull the fire alarm in my school two days ago so that's why it came to mind. He'll have a felony record now if the judge isn't nice to him. They make a real big deal out of it and it is a felony so counts, but do you think it should if we're counting strikes.

[bobbylien]

Pulling a fire alarm isnt a violent offense, I'm sure that kid will just get a slap on the wrist. I voted yes.
Its a great idea. My grandparents own a few houses that they rent out and they have some really trashy people, lol most of them should be in prison for good. One of them was just caught yesterday for his 5th drug selling offense. He gets out of prison tuesday and we can't kick him out of the house. It sucks because, as a land lord, you can't use someones criminal record to deny them the chance to rent your house. I hate the liberal Wisconsin criminal justice system.

[BoogyMan]

I voted no. There needs to be discretion as to whether the harsh punishment is necessary and whether the crimes match up with it. We don't need people with 2 convictions for burglary to be put away for 25 years for shoplifting, or possession of marijuana.

There's also the issue that the multiple offenses can occur within a short period. If the person is in and out of trouble from the time they're 18 to 35 then that's one thing, if they get busted 3 times between 20 and 21 or 22, then that needs to be taken into consideration.

There are too many exceptions I'd want that such a law would be pointless. If there were enough serious crimes, if they occured in different periods over a significant period of a persons life, if the crimes placed others in danger. They would need to have gone through a significant prison sentence (at least one year) and been put through some form of a rehabilitation program and it failed, or been offered multiple times and refused to participate. Laws such as this sound good and are good political moves, but I don't see it as a good thing.


Some things never change.

[firefox]

I don't support "three strikes" laws for the simple fact that it creates just another "one size fits all" dynamic that doesn't neccessarily take everything into account. Another example of this is "mandatory sentancing" laws, often for drugs or "sex crimes" (which are often dangerously vague in definition). I agree that after a couple of offenses for a particularly "infamous crime", someone deserves to get canned for a longer period, but if this is a trend, it will happen in the judicial system naturally, and thus there's no reason to "pass a law" about something redundantly. What are your thoughts about this?

[Labrocca]

Zo those couple examples you give imho deserve to be in jail forever. F'em. We got enough idiots on the street...these people are bad people..and giving them 3 chances are enough. Do we wait till they build up their criminal nature and kill people? Or do we wake up and say...hey..this person is a bad person and we can no longer allow them to participate in society.

[lily]

alonzomourning23


This man had one conviction for stealing a purse with 10 bucks in it, one attempted unarmed robbery and, 14 years later, he broke into a church kitchen. He was homeless and the priest usually gave him free food, sometimes even drove him places and let him sleep in the church. Well, he couldn't find the priest so he broke into the kitchen to get the food himself. He got 25 to life
link (http://www.cnn.com/US/9904/29/food.thief.3strikes/)

Kevin Weber, who got put away for stealing cookies:
link (http://www.cnn.com/US/Newsbriefs/9510/10-27/index.html)

Jerry Williams stole a slice of pizza:
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Dewayne_Williams)

As of 2003 there were about 350 in jail for 25-life for petty crimes link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/06/MN113328.DTL&type=printable)

While I admit, that the first two examples were a bit overboard your third was not. Also, I specifilly stated vicious crimes or felonies. Isn't stealing a slice of pizza a misdomenoner? Also in your third example you noted that about 350 were in jail for 2-to life. Taninkg into consideration, just how many are imprisoned, that is not an exrta-ordinary about incarcerated.

There are too many problems, this issue itself isn't that hard to fix (though voters rejected such a fix in california), but the other problems I have just make such a law pointless. There needs to be discretion and cases need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

[lily]

I don't support "three strikes" laws for the simple fact that it creates just another "one size fits all" dynamic that doesn't neccessarily take everything into account. Another example of this is "mandatory sentancing" laws, often for drugs or "sex crimes" (which are often dangerously vague in definition). I agree that after a couple of offenses for a particularly "infamous crime", someone deserves to get canned for a longer period, but if this is a trend, it will happen in the judicial system naturally, and thus there's no reason to "pass a law" about something redundantly. What are your thoughts about this?


firefox

I don't support "three strikes" laws for the simple fact that it creates just another "one size fits all" dynamic that doesn't neccessarily take everything into account. Another example of this is "mandatory sentancing" laws, often for drugs or "sex crimes" (which are often dangerously vague in definition).

Going to have to disagree with a couple of points here firefox. Mandatory sentencing is the way to go. Too many lawyers, which is their job I agree) play fast and loose with the law. I think if you're going to commit a crime, you should know what you're in for.

Now I'm just going to assume, since you had "sex crimes" in quotations, you might be thinking if your 18 and having sex with a 16 year old, shouldn't be on the same level as rape of real pedophilia? As for drug offenses, I think the drug laws are draconian. It is putting the sellers and users behind bars, but does nothing to addressing the distributors.....but then I think most drugs should be legal anyway.

I agree that after a couple of offenses for a particularly "infamous crime", someone deserves to get canned for a longer period, but if this is a trend, it will happen in the judicial system naturally, and thus there's no reason to "pass a law" about something redundantly. What are your thoughts about this?
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that, let's use for example Ted Bundy. After he finally got caught and re-caught, they sentneced him to death. Do you mean that all serial killers should be put to death, just to set an example?

[firefox]

Speaking of Ted, he went to my Univ. for a semester, perhaps living in the same dorm room my girlfriend did when she was a freshman! Freaky isn't it? On the plus side, Dale Chihuly also spent a semester or two here, so it's not all bad :D

In response to the first part of your above post, I think we can agree that a major, perhaps lager component of all this is that there are way too many laws, lawyers, and litigation going on over all, right? To clarify the Bundy part, I'm also against the death penalty. Sorry if that was confusing!

[lily]

Ok.......that is just scary about your girlfriend.

In response to the first part of your above post, I think we can agree that a major, perhaps lager component of all this is that there are way too many laws, lawyers, and litigation going on over all, right?

Agreed

To clarify the Bundy part, I'm also against the death penalty. Sorry if that was confusing!

The death penalty doesn't have too much to do with the three stikes law. I think it's safe to go off topic, since I think most have voted.

I have to admit, I'm on the fence about the death penalty. It is only suppose to be used if the crime was extremely heinous (sp)....but then I would think that anyone that has had a loved one murdered would think their murder would fit the category. IMO this is no longer the criteria.

My personal opinion is anyone that committed aÂ*Â*crime against a child should be put to death. I was more against the death penalty before DNA became so reliable. Also, let's face it. Anyone on death row has so many appeals that they pretty much have lived most of their life anyway.

[bobbylien]

This is a matter of saving the lives of innocent people. I don't care about these criminals.. after they commit their second violent offense, they should be locked away for good. Its not worth giving these people more than 3 chances. Let them know that if they hurt someone three times, they are out(personally i think it should be two). We've all seen the horrors that our liberal "justice" system has caused over the years. I care about innocent people, not three time convicted violent criminals.

[firefox]

I have to admit, I'm on the fence about the death penalty. It is only suppose to be used if the crime was extremely heinous (sp)....but then I would think that anyone that has had a loved one murdered would think their murder would fit the category. IMO this is no longer the criteria.

My personal opinion is anyone that committed aÂ*Â*crime against a child should be put to death. I was more against the death penalty before DNA became so reliable. Also, let's face it. Anyone on death row has so many appeals that they pretty much have lived most of their life anyway.


There are 2 reasons why I'm against it:

1. The state and federal penal systmes have a bad habbit of screwing up and killing innocent people.
2. It costs a LOT more money to keep someone on death row for tens of years than it does to put them away for life as normal. Why? I don't really know, but even federal studies show that this is the case.

[lily]

1. The state and federal penal systmes have a bad habbit of screwing up and killing innocent people.

I felt that way before DNA.


2. It costs a LOT more money to keep someone on death row for tens of years than it does to put them away for life as normal. Why? I don't really know, but even federal studies show that this is the case.

Taking a guess here.....because it's too late to hit google. Lawyers and appeals? Also aren't they kept seperate from other prisoners, which would require extra guards?

[firefox]

DNA has been proven to be unreliable at times as well. Human error, problems with the technology itself, etc. I think the most important thing to note is that NOTHING is completely accurate, ever.

[lily]

While I will agree with you, Firefox.........nothing is completely accurate. Right now, DNA is the closest thing we have. I think that, along with a trial by a jury, with all evidence weighed plus two appeals and we can be reasonably safe that we have the right man......unless he has an evil twin living somewhere.

Keep in mind also, that the death penalty is only supposed to be used in extenuating circumstances.

[firefox]

I understand where you're coming from, lily, but I'll respectfully have to disagree. Since we're on the topic, however, are you familiar with "jurry nullification"?

[lily]

I understand where you're coming from, lily, but I'll respectfully have to disagree. Since we're on the topic, however, are you familiar with "jurry nullification"?


I guess I know when to quit too.;)

are you familiar with "jurry nullification"?

Is that where the jury bases their verdict on their emotions, rather than the evidence?

[bobbylien]

I am all for the death penalty, but I'm not willing to risk innocent lives for it. The possibility of executing one innocent person is reason enough to get rid of the death penalty. Let them rot in prison.

[firefox]

Is that where the jury bases their verdict on their emotions, rather than the evidence?


No, it means that you judge the case not only on the evidence, but also on whether the law itself is valid. For example, nullification helped end alcohol prohibition in the US. Jurors were unwilling to find "offenders" guilty until the amendment was eventually repealed. See http://www.fija.org/ for more information. This is the official site of the Fully Informed Jury Association.

[lily]

Thanks firefox!

[piratemonkey]

Most judges in America, liberal or conservative, are against three strikes laws for exactly the reason firefox laid out: One size fits all justice, regardless of the circumstances or severity of the crime.

[firefox]

It's true. How can something be just if it misses the point a large percentage of the time?