I agree that 25 years for shop lifting does sound a bit high, but this guy obvouisly wasn’t detered by shorter sentences, and having been to court twice before he knew what he was getting into.
I pretty much agree with javaman on this one. If you commit armed robbery three times, they should lock you up until you’re old and gray. However, from what I’ve heard (and this could just be anti-three strikes propoganda, so someone please correct me if I’m mistaken), if you commit two serious felonies when you’re 18, lead 30 years of crime-free existence, and then shoplift a Twinkie, you’ll go to prison for life. This, to me, seems excessive.
Jeff
Bricker, I’m getting sick of your matter of fact attitude, I may pit you someday for it… but for now:
I call your attention to the fact that 4 of the 9 learned justices disagreed with the majority. A very close decision. This conforms to the constituion inasmuch as the majority of the current Supreme Court says they do. One dead or resigned justice and one new appointment later, and the tides may turn the other way. Get off your high horse, and realize that these things aren’t necesarilly written in stone.
No, the 3 strikes laws require that the third crime be a felony, not just ‘shoplift a twinkie’. Under California law theft from stores by concealment (‘theft’ and ‘shoplifiting’ have slightly different connotations, don’t they?) can be a felony if the amount is high enough. Since most people are capable of living thier whole lives without being convicted of one felony, I don’t think it’s asking too much that someone who has already been convicted of two not commit any more.
Look at one of the old favorites of the anti-three-strikes crowd; ‘gosh, this guy stole a slice of pizza and got 25 to life. That’s so unfair!’. What actually happened in that case? The guy had already been tried and convicted for two serious felonies and so certainly knew that robbing people was wrong, that he would be in serious trouble if he kept robbing people, and whatever rehabilitation learning he got in prison. And what did he do once he was out of jail? Got hungry, so he beat up a kid (that part tends to get left out) and stole his food. Hardly someone who deserves to remain free in society, at least in my book.
As far as ‘serious felonies’ go, I’m not really clear on what a ‘nonserious felony’ would be; there are felonies that I don’t think should be crimes, and felonies that I think should be misdemeanors, but nothing that I would consider ‘not serious’ ought to be a felony.
Well, to be fair someone who’s gone to jail twice may not know that stealing is wrong. He should know that it is disapproved of, however.
I don’t have any particular problem with a strict 3 strikes law.
Strike 1: Rehabilitation
Strike 2: Rehabilitation
Strike 3: At this point the goal of the justice system is no longer rehabilitation but the removal of an offender from the larger population.
Works for me.