I personally feel that this law is a tad tough. I mean, there are people in prison for life for selling a dime bag because it was their third time being found guilty. It’s not like our prisons aren’t overpopulated as it is, not to mention the money it takes to pay for a prisoner for the rest of his life. What a terrible law, who thought of it and why? It’s not deterring crime.
What say you?
Its one of those things about America I just have never understood. Other societies punish criminals, others seek to reform them, America just wants them to suffer, and fuck 'em. A largely generous people, but they hate their criiminal underclass with a passion.
I don’t get it. But there it is. They throw people into places where savagery and fear are survival skills, cook them for however long, then hand them a cardboard suit and a couple of bucks. What possible positive outcome is there?
By a ghastly irony, the people who deserve our prisons are precisely the people who thrive therein, the vicious, the cruel. And those we might have some hope of rescuing quckly learn that no good deed goes unpunished.
And we’re stunned when it doesn’t turn out so good.
Drug enforcement laws seem to be silly on a much larger scale than just the three strikes thing.
I’m not sure I know of anyone in prison for life for selling a few ounces of pot, though. Could you give a cite for that? I thought the three strikes law just meant that there was a mandatory maximum prison sentence for your third drug possession offense, which would be something like 3 years right? (which is still retarded, don’t get me wrong). I don’t think a life sentence for smalltime drug sales would pass a “cruel and unusual” constitutional check.
It is deterring crime. The habitual offender cannot offend again. That is a pretty strong deterrent. Now, is it right? Californians, in their infinite wisdom, thought so and overwhelmingly voted for the ballot initiative in 1994 (Washington was first a year prior). I mention California because the law is so strongly identified with them, and they are not necessarily the first state that comes to mind when draconian laws are discussed.
As for me, I think it’s a bit for someone to get life at the age of 50 because their first strike came at age 18 and the penultimate crime is something petty, but again, I didn’t vote for it en masse. The people spoke, and that’s how it is.
First sentence-false.
Second sentence-only applicable if in for life without parole. Otherwise, offender has gained a whole new set of skills and a bad attitude to match.
Third sentence-apparently not, considering available statistics.
Shall I continue?
Nope. 25 to life for anything. For example, this guy got 25 to life for stealing some videos:
The really stupid thing is that California is going to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to imprison this man over 150 bucks.
The first sentence is not false. What is it that a drug dealer cannot do in prison? Sell drugs to the public, of course. What is it that a murderer cannot do in prison? Kill someone that is not in prison. He is effectively deterred from doing so. Bars have a way of doing that.
But please, continue by all means.
25-to-life, IIRC. And notoriously, people have been tossed in for life for things like stealing cookies and pizza.
Hardly, since we are releasing other prisoners to make room for those “dangerous” cookie stealers. And we are undercutting the validity of the law with such obviously vicious and arbitrary punishment.
California’s reputation for liberalism is greatly overstated.
That doesn’t make it right, or smart. It’s simply another example of the stupidity and savagery of the American people.
Let’s not be disingenuous. When people say something is a deterrent, they mean to others contemplating doing the same thing. BTW, Der Trihs does have a good point-unless we turn the country into one large prison system, other criminals have to be let out to make room for the new ones. Those would be the prisoners with the new job skills and the bad attitudes.
Which is why we should be far more concerned with keeping the truly dangerous people behind bars. We should try non-prison means of dealing with petty criminals, so we have the room to keep the serious criminals locked away. If that means a bit more petty theft, so be it.
I’m against it for a variety of reasons, including because it can turn what would otherwise be a fairly petty crime into an extremely violent one - if somebody has two strikes on their record and they commit a third crime, they are looking at 25 to life, the same penalty handed down for murder.
So if I’ve got two strikes and I snatch some lady’s purse, I really don’t have much to lose no matter what I do to escape, including killing anyone who gets in my way.
And if I’m in jail, doing the same amount of hard time as convicted murderers, how well am I likely to cooperate with the jailers? What are they going to do if I maim or kill somebody?
These are points that have been raised by law enforcement and correctional officers out here in California. I helped chase down a purse-snatcher and found out after the fact that he already had two strikes on his record. The police were very happy that none of us actually tried tackling the guy.
I agree that someone who is a habitual criminal needs to be dealt with more harshly but “3 Strikes” isn’t the way to do it.
This sounds correct in theory, but in practice, has it happened? That is, since the law was enacted, has there been a documented increase in the level of violence of crimes enacted by people who already have two strikes against them?
Any cites?
Have you seen this?
Not sure how valid that data is, just wanted to point out that some data seems to show that it is working.
No, it doesn’t. Crime has been going down in general, regardless of such laws.
And regardless of whether it “works” or not, tossing someone in prison for 25-to-life for a trival offense is disgusting. And rather worse than the majority of crimes.
Let’s not propagate urban legends. It looks like the cookie-stealing guy did not “just steal some cookies”
From wikipedia
Cite? That is, cite that places that didn’t have such laws have seen similar rates of decrease of crime, and why the decrease in CA seems to coincide so nicely with the introduction of the law. Was the law introduced at just the “right” time, by coincidence, and the same reduction in crime would have happened regardless of whether the law was passed?
If all the offenses are trivial, then, yes, it is wrong to toss them in jail for life. But, if the first two are not trivial, then the sentence should be seen as corresponding to his behavior in toto, and not only to his last offense.
For example
I’m sorry, but if you have been convicted of burglary and of robbing someone with a knife, you have no business shoplifting anything, not even a toothpick. You should keep your hands to your fucking self.
Three strikes for violent crime, I can agree with. For petty stuff, I’d like to see more rehabilitation, and more exoneration for drug offenses.
There is nothing wrong with putting violent offenders (particularly habitual ones) away for life–a hard life of hard work behind bars. Execution is an alternative way of getting rid of the most violent ones. These people destroy society. An assortment of other categories such as sexual predation upon the young, treason and so on should carry life sentences.
For most other crimes, prolonged incarceration is not a very effective deterrent to others and not a very useful consequence of the crime. It’s expensive and unlikely to change behaviour.
The single biggest issue I have with the current US “criminal” business is making drug crimes a felony at all, but I guess that’s too far off-topic from the OP.
My primary objection to the Three Strikes laws that I’ve seen discussed is that they’re all mandatory sentencing laws. I object to legislating a mandatory (and usually draconian) sentence. IMNSHO the purpose of judges and juries is to weigh the specific details of an individual crime, and hand down a sentence that’s supposed to be commensurate with that crime, based on the guidelines provided by the legal code.
I have no objection to giving the criminal justice system a chance to present someone as a habitual violent offender, as a rider to a specific crime, to enhance the sentence that he or she would have gotten otherwise. If that enhancement turns what might have been a 5 to 10 year sentence to life in prison, I’m not going to object to that prima facie. But, I want there to be enough slack in the way that the laws are enforced to allow for alternatives.
The other specific problem I have with the California’s Three Strikes law is that the way it’s written there’s been some discussion about how people who believe that they’re at risk of being sentenced under it become more violent and more likely to kill while committing their crimes. Because they feel that they’ve got nothing left to lose by failing to show any restraint.
I’m with OtakuLoki, I’m primarily against the three strikes laws because we’re suppose to have a system whereby judges and juries are suppose to weigh the specific circumstances of a criminal act within the context of the law. Of course you could argue that the three strike law still allows judges and juries to render decisions within the context of the law but I think it takes too much power out of their hands.
That said, I don’t really feel sorry for those who run afoul of the three strike laws. I wouldn’t mind seeing some attempts at prison reform but I’m not really sure what would work better. Are people usually sentenced to lengthy prison terms for their first non-violent offense? Are we genuinely capable of rehabilitating a significant portion of the prison population? What alternatives are there other than prison or jail? I wish I knew. I generally have a “fuck 'em” attitude towards prisoners but realizing they’re probably going to be released into society at some point in the future I’d rather they weren’t abused in the system and had help assimilating into society.
We’re talking about a group who, as a whole, seems to have difficult with impulse control and risk assessment. I’m not really sure what we can do to help them.
Marc
