Three Strikes Laws

[2952-0-0]

I oppose, simply because corporations are above the law and don't get expropriated after three violations.

[Jake]

Support, though simply having air tight and high prison terms will solve the situation much more easily.

[© tweed]

Oppose, I don't like it as it places armed robbery on par with marijuana possession.  It equifies crimes that aren't equal.

[dazzleman]

I support three-strikes laws.

In general though, I think that the best time to make an impression on a criminal is in his first trip through the justice system.

We allow criminals to keep escalating from petty crimes to major crimes, without receiving any significant prison time.

Better to punish a person more severely early on, to make him fear the system.  A person who gets in trouble with the law should never come away from the experience relieved, or thinking it was a joke, and I think many do.

I wonder how much crime could be stopped, and how many criminals might be dissuaded from going too far down the criminal path, by more effective punishment at an earlier stage.

As Ed Koch (former NYC mayor) wisely said, "a first offender is in reality usually a multiple offender who is being caught for the first time."

I do agree with three strikes laws for those who persist in committing serious crimes, but three strikes is clearly a stop-gap measure, necessary though it may be, and I think more effective punishment earlier could make it less necessary to use these laws.

[dazzleman]

Oppose, I don't like it as it places armed robbery on par with marijuana possession.  It equifies crimes that aren't equal.

I think it should only apply to offenses above a certain level of seriousness.  To use an absurd example, it certainly shouldn't apply to things like speeding ('cause if it did, even I and most of my friends would be doing life )

[© tweed]

Oppose, I don't like it as it places armed robbery on par with marijuana possession.  It equifies crimes that aren't equal.

I think it should only apply to offenses above a certain level of seriousness.  To use an absurd example, it certainly shouldn't apply to things like speeding ('cause if it did, even I and most of my friends would be doing life )

Even that would hardly be perfect.  You'd have some crimes qualify for the three-strikes sentincing laws and others not.  For example, cocaine possession might qualify while crack possession would not.  I just don't like to have those situations arise.

[dazzleman]

Oppose, I don't like it as it places armed robbery on par with marijuana possession.  It equifies crimes that aren't equal.

I think it should only apply to offenses above a certain level of seriousness.  To use an absurd example, it certainly shouldn't apply to things like speeding ('cause if it did, even I and most of my friends would be doing life )

Even that would hardly be perfect.  You'd have some crimes qualify for the three-strikes sentincing laws and others not.  For example, cocaine possession might qualify while crack possession would not.  I just don't like to have those situations arise.

I understand what you're saying.  The devil is in the details, and the law is a mess.  It will never be perfect, but it should be written in such a way that persistent, habitual committers of serious crimes are locked up for life.

As I said, we should at least attempt to turn these people around before they reach this point, through more severe punishment at an earlier stage, and even rehabilitation, if they are open to it, as a SUPPLEMENT to the punishment.  But if they persist, then they have to be taken off the street.

I don't think we should use procedural excuses, such as the ones you're giving, to effectively allow violent criminals to remain free, or get yet another chance to victimize people.   We have to be very, very tough with these people if we are to control crime.

[opebo]

Oppose, not only because it is excessive, but because most 'crimes' in this country should be legalized.

[Bono]

Of course I oppose them.
Judges and juries should have total freedom in sentencing.

[Ebowed]

Oppose.

[dazzleman]

Of course I oppose them.
Judges and juries should have total freedom in sentencing.

Three strikes laws have nothing to do with juries.  Juries only acquit or convict for a particular crime, and the sentencing is up to the judge.

The laws were passed because judges were putting habitual violent criminals back onto the street over and over again.

Most people here seem to have no sense of the level of victimization that has taken place at the hands of violent criminals.  Too many people, including many in the justice system, were very blase about it, and some were infected with a perverted sense of who was the perpetrator and who was the victim.  Sentences were not adequate, and that's why these laws were passed.

[Platypus]

Oppose. Have a points system, with low-level crimes worth one point and high-level crimes worth up to 10 points. 10 points and you go to jail, but judicial discretion should be in place for sentencing.

That seems reasonably fair to me, much moreso then 'three strikes'.

BTW dazz, in many states juries have sentencing jurisdiction; for example in Indiana juries determine in murder cases if the death penalty should take effect.

[dazzleman]

Oppose. Have a points system, with low-level crimes worth one point and high-level crimes worth up to 10 points. 10 points and you go to jail, but judicial discretion should be in place for sentencing.

That seems reasonably fair to me, much moreso then 'three strikes'.

BTW dazz, in many states juries have sentencing jurisdiction; for example in Indiana juries determine in murder cases if the death penalty should take effect.

I'm aware of jury involvement in death penalty sentences, but that is the only involvement I can think of, other than indirect involvement in cases where the jury is allowed to convict of a lesser charge.

I think the point system is a good idea, but what you are proposing is not tough enough.  For those who accumlate a high number of points, there should be a very long minimum sentence in prison.

I find most people only look at this issue from the perspective of the criminal.  This is perverse.  There is no consideration of the damage and pain that it causes to have these people free to victimize others.  Punishment for serious crimes must be severe, especially for those who have done it before.  As I posted earlier, I think it should also be severe for so-called first offenders, but even more severe for repeat offenders.

[Platypus]

well, in the trial have victim impact statements, or during sentencing proceedings. I support them; I think they're aq good idea; but in our criminal justice system, perhaps unlike America's, our focus is on ensuring the right punishment is given to each individual-NO numerical sentencing, NO automatic jail, and no consideration of prior convictions in trial (pre-sentencing). Sure, some people get sentences that are too short, but I think that is a lot better then sentences that are too long.

[Jake]

Wrong. I'd rather punish a criminal for too long than have him get out after two years and know he can committ another crime and get out quick. Any felony should have a ten year minimum, any violent felony should have a twenty year minimum, any serious sex crime should get thirty-five minimum, and murder should get fifty minimum. Murder combined with a sex crime should get life as a slave. Parole should be abolished.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oppose, I don't like it as it places armed robbery on par with marijuana possession.  It equifies crimes that aren't equal.

I agree.

It should be limited to malum in se felonies.