|
I agree ONLY because the 3 strike rule exists because we don't trust ourselves or our Legal system
to deal with these criminals appropriately anyway, so we put a fail safe clause in there that if we
haven't deterred or punished them enough the first two times then the third time it's automatic.
What we really need to do is fix the Legal system itself. If you can trust your system then you
don't need a 3 strikes rule. Hey bail needs to be effectively high or not granted, prosecutions
need to be fair and effective, trials timely, sentences consistent and based on degree of violence
and danger to society, and prisoners need to serve their terms. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The three strikes concept has it's place but it is often used in a manner beyond what the intent
was. If somebody gets two strikes for robbery in their 20s then got busted in their 40s for drunk
and disorderly they do not deserve 25 to life. The idea of three strikes was to get habitual violent
criminals off the streets, not to pad some DAs conviction record. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
"Three strikes" was not enacted to reduce crime. It was enacted by politicians trying to score
political points with voters andto put taxpayer money into the wallets of contractors who
donate to their campaigns.
Many of those who receive "life" sentences on third strikes have committed crimes that would
normally get only a few months to a few years. Often these are property crimes (read: Theft)
with no direct victimization of people.
Edit:
In his typical stupidity and dishonesty, sillymiller doesn't know (or pretends not to) that
prior to "third strike" laws, judges had the ability to give long sentences to career criminals.
The claim that "nothing could be done" is a lie, but what else would one expect from a habitual liar
and believer of lies like the buybull?
Isn't it funny...reichwing morons want "third strike" laws but whine about hate crime laws as being
"unnecessary" despite the fact that both do the same thing, in legal terms.
|
| |
 K9  31 Oct 2009 17:52
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I have just read Grenache's post on the opposite side and it nearly swayed me. I will stick on this
side though as I can't see a problem with the law in its basic form. The idea is to give someone a
chance to improve their behaviour after the first offense ( this offense should still be punished).
Perhaps if it happens a second time they should be punished more severely but after a third time it
is clear that they have no wish to mend their ways and are a clear danger to the public. I have no
sympathy at all with someone who commits three crimes whilst knowing full well they will get a
severe sentence after the third offense.
However like Grenache says we shouldn't really need this law if we got it right in the first place. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Homestar you seem to be a very well spoken philoanthropist, but im sure you can see the danger, that
these people put others in. It may be sad that a 17 year old has to go to jail, but obviously if he
didn't learn from his first two mistakes, theres little chance to learn from the third. Then again,
think about this: Is it better for him to be in jail for decades and learn his lesson? Or hit a
person and possibly kill them, and then be stuck in jail for their entire life. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Its cruel to allow a 17 year old to commit 3 felonies in society without a harsher penalty. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
