Do you believe the "Three Strikes, You're Out" law is a good one?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=elucidator]
Prison isn’t a place where we contain sociopaths. Prison is the place where we manufacture sociopaths.
[/QUOTE]

Actually I’ve never seen any evidence that a non-sociopath adult can be “manufactured” into a sociopath. Sociopathy has been attributed to biology or sometimes early childhood–but I’ve never seen anything suggesting it can develop because you’re in a brutal environment as an adult. You may become brutal, aggressive, violent by continual exposure to a violent atmosphere. However, the definition of sociopath isn’t “someone who is a violent criminal” you can become a violent criminal without being a sociopath and you can also be a sociopath without being a violent criminal. Most sociopaths (or people with antisocial personality disorder) typically manifest their problems in interpersonal relationships, their only victims are loved ones who they habitually use and abuse, however this is often done without any actual criminal action.

42

[QUOTE=Valgard]
No I don’t want him living in my neighborhood, however “3 Strikes” laws give the next guy with two priors an incentive to kill you, because getting caught making off with your TV now carries the same penalty as beating you to death with the fireplace poker, so what does he have to lose?

Being opposed to 3 Strikes laws is not the same as saying that criminals shouldn’t be punished, it’s a matter of feeling that the punishment does not fit the crime and makes the problem worse by giving petty criminals an incentive to become extremely violent.
[/QUOTE]

You’re working from the assumption that most murders are committed by people who are intimately aware of what risks there are (legally) in committing said murder. I don’t believe most murderers are people who will be influenced to murder because of the law nor do I think they will be dissuaded from committing murder by the law. Murder is such an antisocial act, that I think a large majority of the people who commit it are not people who are by their nature, not people who are extremely concerned with the consequences of their actions. The ones who are concerned with the consequences are typically the ones who plan their murder in advance and do everything to avoid getting caught. These are people who by their nature, are committing premeditated murder and thus are already past the point of being influenced by the law one way or another.

It’s worth mentioning, that at least in California, murdering the person in your scenario can and would increase the penalty. It can put the death penalty on the table.

43

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
I’m going to take the pro-three strikes side in this debate.

Maybe this will come off a holier-than-thou but I am 36 and I have never been arrested, let alone gone to prison. I find it very hard to sympathize with people who have broken major (i.e. felonious) laws AT LEAST THREE TIMES!

[/QUOTE]

I’m seeing more hyperbole than debate on both sides, by I kind of have to agree with SaintCad. How hard is it to NOT commit three felonies?

And I don’t want to seem holier than thou about the whole drug thing, but given that it is illegal, maybe it might be a good idea to find a hobby that won’t land you in jail?

Now I suppose I disagree with the whole Three Strikes concept because it does seem a bit rigid. Then again, how many times should someone be allowed to commit armed robbery?

44

I’m absolutely against any jail time for drug charges, other than maybe the movie-style drug cartel owners importing thousands of pounds of the stuff via private jet and desperate impoverished “mules.” Those maybe should go to jail; otherwise, no.

But anything else, if haven’t gotten the message after three convictions you probably aren’t going to. “Petty” theft? You really should have learned your lesson the first two arrests. These people are just really bad for society, and if we cleared the prisons of all the people there on stupid drug charges, there would be room for the assholes who keep breaking into people’s houses.

45

One thing that three-strikes laws are unlikely to do is deter criminals. They are also unlikely to cause the burglar in the example above to murder the witness. Why? Because study after study of criminal behaviour confirms the obvious - the average criminal is not thinking about the possible severity of the sentence he will receive when he’s caught and tried, since he doesn’t expect to be caught at all. (Why murder the witness who can identify me after the cops arrest me - the cops are never going to even know who I am!) Few people would commit crimes if they didn’t think they could get away with it (or for many, they just didn’t think at all).

46

[QUOTE=Bookkeeper]
study after study of criminal behaviour confirms the obvious - the average criminal is not thinking about the possible severity of the sentence he will receive when he’s caught and tried
[/QUOTE]

Cite?

47

I think it needlessly ties the hands of the judge. If someone is a threat to society, then prior convictions should be taken into account when sentences are given. But sentences should be within the range available for the crime in question. A crime that rates at most 15 years should not become a life sentence because of past convictions, rather those convictions are things the judge needs to consider for the current conviction. Three strikes makes a nice bumper sticker, and bumper stickers make for poor policy in my view. Let’s trust the judicial system and not overburden the prison system to make politicians appear to be tough on crime.

48

[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I think it needlessly ties the hands of the judge. If someone is a threat to society, then prior convictions should be taken into account when sentences are given.
[/quote]

I agree with you here, 100%.

And disagree here. If some three-time loser is being sentenced for his third 15 year offense, the courts should have the option to extend the sentence beyond the normal range for that conviction.

I agree again, here. With the exception that I’d put it as: “…not needlessly overburden the prison system…”

Obviously, it’s a minor disagrement. I suspect we could hammer out a compromise we’d both be willing to live with. Far more happily than we can, either of us, live with most current Three Strikes laws. One idea might be to give the courts the option, in the case of repeat offenders, to deny the automatic concurrent sentencing for lesser included offenses which is AIUI currently the common practice.

49

I have a hard time getting past my view that people should be sentenced for the crime they commit and not for crimes for which they have already paid their debt to society. If cattle tipping (to use a silly example) is a felony with a 2-10 year range of sentencing, sure your prior burglary convictions should cause the judge to me at or near 10 years for your conviction. But those prior burglaries should not magically make cattle tipping a life sentence. It seems to me that to tack on time beyond the maximum sentence for the crime in question because of past crimes amounts to double jeopardy- you’d be getting resentenced for crimes which you’ve already served your time for.

50

I think the problem with California’s 3 strikes law is the details rather than the concept.

It’s reasonable to want multiple violent offenders to be segregated from society. They’ve proven they can’t walk the streets as free men without endangering others. I would see this as extending the maximum penalty to Life for serious felonies, and only making that sentence available (and required) if the person has multiple prior felony convictions.

The law as written, however, allows for non-violent offenses, and offenses that are almost laughably insignificant to be one of your strikes. In fact, if I read it right, it seems that the law requires “wobble” offenses to be charged as felonies if it would be the 3rd strike, so stealing a candy bar would become a felony. The law also allows for 2 of your strikes to be used up with a single criminal act that includes multiple offenses. The law casts a net far wider than multiple violent offenders, if it were more limited in scope, there would be much less opposition to it.

51

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
The first sentence is not false. What is it that a drug dealer cannot do in prison? Sell drugs to the public, of course.
[/QUOTE]
False.

52

Let me give a very simple example of why a three-strikes law should be in place based on the experiences of my stepson. He’s had his driver’s licence about six months and just went to court for his THIRD speeding ticket in front of the same judge. Here’s are the results:

First ticket: Paid fine (about $100) and took traffic school
Second ticket: Paid fine (about $300), license suspended for one month (held by the court and not reported to the DMV), and a firm lecture that if that he was ticketed again the fine would be over $700 and the license would be gone for a long long time.

So far, it seems pretty standard, so here we go to court for the third ticket (did I mention it’s in front of the same judge?) expecting an official suspension of anywhere from 3 months to his 18th birthday (9 months from now) and a fine of over $700. The sentence? Paid fine (about $300 by his mom since he refuses to get a job), license suspended for one month (held by the court and not reported to the DMV), traffic school (to be paid by his mom) and a firm lecture that if that he was ticketed again the fine would be over $700 and the license would be gone for a long long time.

No I did not screw that up! It was the same damn sentence (plus traffic school) as the second ticket despite all of the threats. Now you have an 17 year old punk that in a month will be driving around thinking that he can do anything behind the wheel with minor consequenses because the judge loves him. Third ticket in a year, even forgetting that he’s a minor, should be an automatic suspension for at LEAST 3 months, but this judge was in a good mood so he decided to cut him another break.

Bottom line: habitual offenders need sentences above and beyond the one-time “Oooooops!” offenders. Can we trust judges to do it? Maybe 90% of the time, but the three-strikes laws are there for the other 10% of the time.

53

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
Bottom line: habitual offenders need sentences above and beyond the one-time “Oooooops!” offenders. Can we trust judges to do it? Maybe 90% of the time, but the three-strikes laws are there for the other 10% of the time.
[/QUOTE]

So next time, a fitting sentence for your stepson would be 15 years in prison?

54

[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
So next time, a fitting sentence for your stepson would be 15 years in prison?
[/QUOTE]

Wow! What hyperbole. Naw, I was thinking having his hands cut off then 30 years at hard labor.

Try to be honest, how did you jump from 3 infractions in a year = 3 month suspended license to 4 infractions in a year = 15 years in prison. Do you actually want to discuss this rationally or continue to discuss it idiotically?

55

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
Wow! What hyperbole. Naw, I was thinking having his hands cut off then 30 years at hard labor.

Try to be honest, how did you jump from 3 infractions in a year = 3 month suspended license to 4 infractions in a year = 15 years in prison. Do you actually want to discuss this rationally or continue to discuss it idiotically?
[/QUOTE]

Because the “3 Strikes” laws impose a mandatory “X years to life” punishment for the third conviction. That’s what we are talking about in this thread, and you used three traffic tickets as your example of why we need a 3 Strikes law.

If you’re pissed that a judge didn’t give your stepson the stiffer punishment that he’d threatened him with that’s understandable, but that’s more a gripe about…what? Generally increasing penalties with multiple convictions? Stiffer punishment for traffic violations? Mandatory punishments for the above? Those are all kinda sorta related to “3 Strikes” but they aren’t necessarily the same thing.

56

[QUOTE=Valgard]
Because the “3 Strikes” laws impose a mandatory “X years to life” punishment for the third conviction. That’s what we are talking about in this thread, and you used three traffic tickets as your example of why we need a 3 Strikes law.

If you’re pissed that a judge didn’t give your stepson the stiffer punishment that he’d threatened him with that’s understandable, but that’s more a gripe about…what? Generally increasing penalties with multiple convictions? Stiffer punishment for traffic violations? Mandatory punishments for the above? Those are all kinda sorta related to “3 Strikes” but they aren’t necessarily the same thing.
[/QUOTE]

Let me try to explain this a little more clearly. Clearly the three-strikes law I gave as an example (3 tickets = 3 months suspension) is not THE three-strikes law of 25 to life for three felonies. My point was that one of the reasons we have THE three strikes law is that judges cannot always be trusted to habitual offenders off the street.

Understand? It’s an analogy. Since talking about three (purely coincidental) tickets is confusing you with three strikes, let me call it the “three-tickets law”. The judge believes (or at least claims to believe) that the third ticket justifies a strict sentence. Yet with no extinuating circumstances, those threats were not put into practice. A three-tickets law would set a minimum punishment for the third ticket to take a dangerous driver of the street for an extended time. Maybe I did not adequately explain, but despite having three speeding tickets (and an accident) in the first six months - my stepson truly believes there is no real consequence to his actions and as a result does not intend to change his driving style. See how this anaolgy may apply to a three-strikes law?

By ANALOGY, a three-strikes law takes a habitual felon and does not leave open the possibility that the leinency of a judge will give the criminal yet another chance with a sentence that offers no real consequences in the criminal’s mind.

Let me try again:
I want this 17 year old to drive more safely, but daggumit, every time I punish him by holding his license for a month, he goes out and gets another ticket within a week of getting it back. I’m sure the next time I hold his license for a month, he’ll change.

I want this armed robber to stop robbing liquor stores with a gun, but daggumit, every time I punish him by giving him 3-5 years in prison, he goes out and robs another store within six months of release. I’m sure the next time I give him 3-5 years in prison, he’ll change.

It’s cases like my stepson’s (more correctly - attitudes like my stepson’s and judge) that make me favor mandatory punishments for habitual bad drivers and habitual felons, but obviously not the SAME punishment.

57

[QUOTE=SaintCad]
Let me try again:
I want this 17 year old to drive more safely, but daggumit, every time I punish him by holding his license for a month, he goes out and gets another ticket within a week of getting it back. I’m sure the next time I hold his license for a month, he’ll change.

I want this armed robber to stop robbing liquor stores with a gun, but daggumit, every time I punish him by giving him 3-5 years in prison, he goes out and robs another store within six months of release. I’m sure the next time I give him 3-5 years in prison, he’ll change.

It’s cases like my stepson’s (more correctly - attitudes like my stepson’s and judge) that make me favor mandatory punishments for habitual bad drivers and habitual felons, but obviously not the SAME punishment.
[/QUOTE]
However, as implemented, the (arbitrary) three strikes rule imposes draconioan punishments that can be way out of proportion to the periodic (and unquantified) cases of lenient judges. For the purposes of determining who is actually bound by the three strikes rule, California eliminates the statute of limitations and reclassifies misdemeanors as though they were felonies. It also permits prosecutors to lump together multiple violations occurring in a single incident as though they were actually separate incidents. It is an emotion-based law that effectively uses a sledgehammer to swat gnats.