NEWS: Three Strikes Debate

POLITICS: Three Strikes Debate

Proposition 66, which will will examine the "three-strikes" law, is coming up for a vote in California. Many Californians are upset that people are getting life sentences on their third strike after committing a petty crime. Opponents claim this was the intent of voters who originally passed the 3 strikes law. Supporters say that this is irrelevant because three strikes is keeping dangerous people off the street. The debate should help define whether the correctional system is about punishment or rehabilitation.

There was that guy who got wrongly convicted for a 3rd strike, and was locked up. So he escaped, prooved his innocence, and they apologised. And then convicted him for escaping, which was a real 3rd strike, and he's back inside again. Poor bastard.

They say most crime in the UK is committed by a few repeat criminals, and that keepingthose people locked up would reduce crime drastically. I'm not sure, the numbers seem a bit vague. I guess drug programs would be more effective.

3rd strike rule is horrible and costs taxpayers way too much money.

the 3rd strike rule needs to be overturned.

good ol calis last gov was in the pockets of the prison guard unions an the prison makin companys, hence all these strict ass "lets lock everyone up for life" type laws i presume...

The debate around Prop 66 is not about “punishment” vs. “reform,” but about how wide the net should be for absurdly long prison sentences. Passage of Prop 66 would mean that net would be smaller than it currently is. Unfortunately, the problem is more than just “Three Strikes”, but also mandatory minimum sentencing laws passed by the legislature. Prop 66 would be a step forward, but it is only a small step.

This isn’t some turning point towards attitudes toward the criminal justice system. In Los Angeles County, there is a measure on the ballot that would raise the sales tax by a half cent in order to re-open some county jails, hire more cops, and otherwise prepare to arrest and imprison more people. The TV commercial by proponents of this measure basically has the message: vote for Measure A or white women will be raped.

It’s fucked up.

what about a ten strike rule....

them's got to be bad dudes or dudettes

edited to say
and if the red sox had a ten strike rule, we'd probably still inevitably lose.

[Edited on Oct 15, 2004 2:41PM]

"Three strikes" laws are just plain bad legislation. I happen to believe that in the application of law...you can't have an absolute, uniform policy like that. At least...you shouldn't.

You want to help out our nation's overburdened, overcrowded prison system? Find an alternative to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders.

[Edited on Oct 15, 2004 by Cash]

I don't like any of these laws that take choices away from judges and juries during sentencing. The judge in a "three strikes" case could sincerely believe that the defendant was trying to clean up his act and made an understandable mistake, but have no choice in the matter.

Three Strikes and so many other harsh measures are really "Full Employment for Prison Guard" laws. In California, the number one opponent of Prop 66 (which doesn't do away with Three Strikes completely, by the way) is the Prison Guards Union.

Read Angela Davis' "Are Prisons Obsolete" for a radical reconsideration of the increasing incarceration rates in the US.

No...the "Three Strikes" criminal sentencing measure was signed into law by Republican Pete Wilson in 1994, not Gray Davis. But since it's so fashionable to blame Gray Davis for everything, go right ahead.

oh im gonna


.....


he eats babies

That's the problem that I (and a lot of judges) have with them. As much we like to pretend the opposite, jury trials and sentencing are pretty far from an exact science. Decisions can be highly dependent on circumstance, and these type of laws remove a judge's ability to take that into consideration.

I mean, honestly, just because something is a rule in baseball means that it should apply to the judicial system? That fact, in and of itself, should have warned voters that the law was more about politics than about justice - it was a catchy name, that's all.

edited for purposes of clarity.

[Edited on Oct 15, 2004 by legionnaire]

I could see giving slack to someone that is trying to “clean up their act” and committed a misdemeanor, but that’s why the 3-strike rule only applies to felony offenses. If you committed a felony you definitely knew what you were doing was wrong and you’re definitely a dumb shit if it’s going to be your third offense.

I don’t care what the masses think, my opinion is that if someone isn’t as smart as Pavlov’s dog, well, then they deserve whatever they get… and it’s not like the three-strike rule is a big secret. The fact that it’s a well-known policy only goes to reinforce my opinion.

No one is a victim of ‘wrong place at the wrong time’ three times… no one. Criminals are dumb.

I can understand the desire to lean towards a "punishment" vs. "reform" debate... these attempts at legal reforms bear a striking similarity to the ones that eventually did away with Debtor's Prison in England - the old institution that imprisoned people for being in debt (yeah that was a smart one, there...).

The unfortunate thing is that at the end of the day, both sides ultimately have to acknowledge a couple of points:

1) You'll never have an adequate reduction in crime rates without remedying the issues that spawn criminals/criminal activity.

2) The harsh nature of prisons far too often tends to make perpetrators of criminal activity into criminals.

3) No matter what you do, there will always be crime, there will always be criminals, there will always be prison, and that the desire to punish isn't necessarily wrong.

Let's just sterilise criminals, instead! A good bit of eugenics never hurt anyone.

Wait... no.

You realize that sometimes the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is $100 vs $101, right?

And that many drug offenses are felonies?

The only reason you should go away "for life" is if you commited a crime that is punishable by life inprisonment.

I don't care how many times you've been busted for selling dope. You do the time for each crime you commit. Unless you are determined to be legally, incurably, and dangerously insane (and there's a specific and well-established process for determing such cases), it's not the government's business to infer based on an arbitrary number derived from a sport who is incorrigible and "deserves" to be locked away forever.

[Edited on Oct 15, 2004 by Keith]

The issue is not "being smart" or not but about developing a rational public policy. If the issue were about being "dumb" or not, more than CE Boards poster would be serving 35 to life in Avenal.

Three stikes and you go to jail for life? Remind me never to play baseball in California.

How about you obey the law and don't make the first strike? Is that so hard to ask? Is that out of line? If we've resigned to the fact that people will commit crimes why can't criminals resign to the fact that they will go to jail. I don't want to pay for them any more than anyone else but one way or another we pay. But feel free to chalk me up to some narrow minded idiot. I don't care.

Done.

This thread can be divided into two groups. The people who think being a colossal fuckup and menace to society should be punishable with a mere slap on the wrist each time it’s done, and the people who are realists. Seriously.

Let’s apply the three-strike rule to other aspects of life, shall we (keeping in mind that felony offenses are something you KNOW you aren’t supposed to do, I don’t care about the price of weed because it’s a moot point)…

Say I miss work and they find out it was because, oh, I was selling a bag of weed to someone (to make it even less offensive we’ll say it was an older person and I wasn’t selling to little kids on the playground). What are the odds I’m going to keep my job? Pretty fucking slim, but, for arguments sake, let’s say that my employer is feeling particularly generous and let’s me slide.

Repeat a second time.

Third time… c’mon, let’s be realistic. If you pull that shit on an employer three times, you’re done, finished, out of there. No chance for redemption what so ever. The same thing would be true if you were in school and committed what the said institution considers a major offense. It would be warning with disciplinary action, serious disciplinary action… then get the fuck out.

I think the true moral of the story is, if you want to be a repeat dumbass – move to a different state.

I would divide the thread into two groups as well. People who have actual put some thought into the policies of the criminal justice system, and suburbanites whose experience with the CJS, people who have been through the system, and the communities affected by the CJS doen't go beyond what they see by watching Law and Order, Cops, and the evening news.

You clearly have no idea what Prop 66 would do. Because it doen't, in fact do away with the Three Strikes law.

Because getting fired is exactly the same as serving a life sentencing for tagging a wall.

Did you see that!

Read this:


Arguement against prop 66

Nice COMPLETE BULLSHIT argument.
Manson what? would still be murdering people had his 7 murders only counted as one strike? The murders carry enough time too keep him in for life. This has nothing to do with 3 strikes.
Gee, I really trust what these people have to say...

I have no problem with the first two but the last one would bother me. "Burglary of an unoccupied residence"? How do they know its unoccupied before they break in? I think they should leave the B&E part in there.