IDS2: Three Strikes Bill [Statute]

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. Supersonic

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You have 24 hours to advocate for this, Supersonic.

I will reserve my own opinion on this bill until then.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I asked him to introduce this for me. I do not intend to monopolize discussion of all of my bills, but I will mention that I tried to patch up a common complaint about three strikes laws by requiring that the third strike is sufficiently serious (specifically a violent crime and not a wobbler). Otherwise people can get put away for life by stealing someone's sandwich, because petty theft with a prior felony is charged as a felony.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I have several problems with this bill.  First of all, each state tends to have its own qualifications for what a felony is, and standardizing them would require an extensive overhaul of each state law in the region.  In Connecticut, for example, writing a bomb threat is itself considered a felony.  As severe and despicable as that is, is it reasonable to sentence someone to life in prison for writing three bomb threats?  Moreover, is it even necessary to have a law like this on the books since some felonies can get you life imprisonment on the first offense?  And if life imprisonment becomes the automatic punishment for a third felony, could this permanently affect how courts decide on cases?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I have several problems with this bill.  First of all, each state tends to have its own qualifications for what a felony is, and standardizing them would require an extensive overhaul of each state law in the region.  In Connecticut, for example, writing a bomb threat is itself considered a felony.  As severe and despicable as that is, is it reasonable to sentence someone to life in prison for writing three bomb threats?  Moreover, is it even necessary to have a law like this on the books since some felonies can get you life imprisonment on the first offense?  And if life imprisonment becomes the automatic punishment for a third felony, could this permanently affect how courts decide on cases?

     Perhaps specify that only regional crimes count for this? We inherit the statute of the state of Georgia, so anything that is a crime in Georgia is a crime in all of the IDS. It's also worth noting that writing a bomb threat is not a violent crime, so it would not be sufficient to get a life sentence under this law.

     What felonies get you life imprisonment besides murder anyway? There is rather significant potential for recidivism among other kinds of felonies. Robbery in California can be punished by as little as 2 years in prison and reaches a maximum of 9 years under special circumstances. Rape of an adult carries a maximum of 8 years in prison. Things are probably somewhat stricter down here, granted.

     Three strikes being automatic does concern me in that regard. There probably exists data on the issue in re California, though I would mention that most people who hit a third strike will be eligible for parole after only a few years. In California, it's 25 years to life.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I have several problems with this bill.  First of all, each state tends to have its own qualifications for what a felony is, and standardizing them would require an extensive overhaul of each state law in the region.  In Connecticut, for example, writing a bomb threat is itself considered a felony.  As severe and despicable as that is, is it reasonable to sentence someone to life in prison for writing three bomb threats?  Moreover, is it even necessary to have a law like this on the books since some felonies can get you life imprisonment on the first offense?  And if life imprisonment becomes the automatic punishment for a third felony, could this permanently affect how courts decide on cases?

     Perhaps specify that only regional crimes count for this? We inherit the statute of the state of Georgia, so anything that is a crime in Georgia is a crime in all of the IDS. It's also worth noting that writing a bomb threat is not a violent crime, so it would not be sufficient to get a life sentence under this law.

I'm not sure what Georgia law says about bomb threats, but if it constitutes a felony, then I think that could have some very negative legal implications.  Amending it to specify that this law would only apply to regional crimes might be helpful, but I still have some qualms about these type laws which I will outline below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is data for California on this.  I'll summarize what I read and copy-paste some information from Wikipedia on the negative impacts this law has had.

Up until 2011, California punished shoplifting and similar crimes under $400 in property as felony petty theft, and the law was changed to require three prior theft related convictions before a petty theft could be charged as a felony.  Some defendants in the state had been given a sentence of 25 years to life just for shoplifting golf clubs.  And, because first and second strikes are counted by individual charges rather than individual cases, a defendant may have been charged and convicted of "first and second strikes", potentially many more than two such strikes, arising from a single case, even one that was disposed of prior to the law's passage.

So, for this law to even be feasible, it needs to be amended for the sake of the judicial flexibility of our court system, which I fear that sentencing laws significantly undermine if they're either too specific or not specific enough.  If we put too many restrictions on our courts, we compromise the fairness of our justice system and reduce the courts' role in how they take their individual cases.  I'm inclined to oppose this bill even if we amend it with what "seems" fair, because anything that de-emphasizes the autonomous role of the courts in deciding cases should be met with doubt.  There are a few other reasons to be skeptical of these laws which are mentioned in the Wiki article, but the one I outlined is my biggest concern.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The issues in California are something that I tried to write around here. I wasn't aware that multiple strikes could be had from one trial, though. That is something that should be accounted for.

     Now that you bring it up, I would agree that the autonomy of the courts is important. Each situation is different, and we need to provide for that sort of thing. So what if we made the third strike a sentencing option?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

     The issues in California are something that I tried to write around here. I wasn't aware that multiple strikes could be had from one trial, though. That is something that should be accounted for.

     Now that you bring it up, I would agree that the autonomy of the courts is important. Each situation is different, and we need to provide for that sort of thing. So what if we made the third strike a sentencing option?

I think that's something I could get behind.

Would you (or Supersonic, in this case) consider this amendment friendly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The Legislature will now vote on the amendment.  Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Supersonic]

Friendly amendment.

Aye.

[Enderman]

AYE

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The amendment is adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Would anyone else like to speak in favor or against the bill or propose another amendment?  If not, I can carry this bill to a final vote tomorrow afternoon.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I realize now that Section 2 is superfluous with the amendment to Section 1. Would we like to bring back the requirement that the third strike be a serious felony or strike Section 2? Given that the third strike is now subject to judicial discretion I am less wedded to the serious felony requirement, but I could see having it anyway to avoid the whole "life in prison for stealing cookies" type of fiasco.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Good point.  I'll amend the bill accordingly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CatoMinor]

Sorry, but I cannot support anything based on 3 strikes.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

We will now vote on the amendment.  Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[CatoMinor]

Abstain

[Enderman]

AYE

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

With three ayes and one abstention, the amendment is adopted.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'll bring this to a final vote tonight if there's nothing else to change.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

A final vote is now open.  Members, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.