is the three strike law worthy in a modern sivilization such as USA ?
It depends on how it’s written. My state actually has a “two strike” law–after the second offense, you get life in prison without the possibility of parole. Since this law only applies to a very small number of crimes–murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, and several forms of violent sexual assault (rape, “aggravated sodomy”, “aggravated sexual battery”, “aggravated child molestation”)–I think it’s pretty reasonable. Just how many rapes or murders should one person get to commit before we lock them up for good?
No, and neither is mandatory sentencing or the death penalty.
sorry, but i have heard different.
Well, it varies by state. Georgia’s law is pretty narrowly written–See Official Code of Georgia 17-10-6.1 and 17-10-7. Other states may have different provisions.
Wel, bear in mind there is no one “three strikes” law. Each state that has one has their own version. Around twenty-six states out of fifty have adopted some version.
That said, they can tend towards being too harsh, and California’s is going to the Supreme Court as being so harsh that it violates the U.S. Constitution. Lawmakers get very popular with the voters when they enact “tough on crime” legislation. Most people don’t think about the fact that taking away a judge’s discretion may not be a good thing, and that relatively minor crimes (e.g. possession of crack cocaine) can end up carrying ridiculously long prison terms.
That also said, “what the hell is wrong with you Americans” is a little inflammatory.
Hey, buster, it’s not your country, it’s ours, so why don’t you fuck right off?
Nanxox, the US is made up of 50 separate states. Some have a 3-strikes law (or a 2-strikes law, or a 4-strikes law); some do not. Among states that have such laws, it varies as to what crimes count as a “strike”.
IMO, the laws that I would consider seriously unjust are the ones that can send someone to jail for life due to convictions for crimes insufficiently severe.
I’ve heard several stories from California where they have jailed people for life because they have stolen a pizza. There are several cases where the crimes comitted where harmless
So, Naxox, what’s your answer to dealing with those few, violent felons who have demonstrated, whether by word or deed, that they cannot or will not live in normal society without killing, raping, etc.?
Zev Steinhardt
How many strikes do you think they need? 10, 20, 100…or should we all just accept living with criminals and keep quiet.
Well, you’ll have to do better than that.
That may have been their third strike. What were the first two? Two other pizzas? Or a murder and a assault with a deadly weapon? In other words, do you have a specific instance and a cite to go with your “heard several stories?”
Zev Steinhardt
You are so, so tiresome. Do you happen to have a cite?
First of all, in California, the first two strikes have to be violent felonies. The third strike can be any crime at all which I agree is a bit too harsh. Still, how would you feel if that stolen pizza was stolen in a violent armed robbery of a restaurant which is often the case? Next time read the whole story, not just the headlines.
Haj
What do you mean by “harmless”? If you’re talking about drugs, the term is “victimless”. Otherwise, what do you mean by harmless?
Your posts are rather short. Why don’t you explain what your rant is? And why should Americans care what a someone from another country thinks about our criminal justice system?
Come over here and become a citizen, then, maybe, we’ll care what you think.
From what I’ve heard of them I think I would have a problem with some of the other states’ two-strikes or three-strikes laws, specifically California’s. (And what the hell is Georgia doing being more enlightened and progressive than California, anyway?) However, “stealing a pizza” could cover a lot of territory. Are we talking about grabbing a slice of pizza off the counter and running away, or are we talking about
blam! blam!
:plaster dust rains down from the fresh gunshot holes in the ceiling:
GIVE ME THE FUCKING PIZZA OLD MAN, OR I’LL BLOW YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT!
NOW!!!
The problem with three-strikes laws is not the severity of the punishment, but rather the mandatory sentencing aspect of it.
I don’t have a problem with putting someone away for the rest of their lives. What I do have a problem with is a legislative body thinking that they can anticipate every possible situation that might bring someone into the judicial system, and deciding, before they have ever heard any of the specifics, just what that person’s sentence should be.
And, Naxox_dec.2002, please ignore gobear. I think it’s important for us to know what others are thinking about us.
By that logic a judge could sentence someone to probation for his third first-degree murder.
I’m not well-informed on the “pizza caper”, but here is a page that has some information (bolding mine):
Google returned 784 pages using “three stikes”, “pizza” and “california”. The page I linked was chosen at random and was second from the top.
I was listening to a story about the “three strikes” law on National Public Radio (NPR, to U.S. listeners/readers) in my cubicle at work. The department director came by and said, “I can’t believe they’re even discussing that!” The director is from Texas, a state which is known for being harsh with criminals. He is also a member of the Promise Keepers, a religious organisation that promotes strong “family values”. Promise Keepers seem to believe in rather strict ideals of responsibility and punishment, as derived from the Bible. (In my opinion, they’re missing Jesus’s teaching of compassion, and focusing on the “fire and brimstone”. That is, they seem to condemn rather than to “save”. But that’s just my impression.)
I told the director that receiving 25 years for stealing pizza was, in my opinion, a violation of the Eight Ammendment to our Constitution. First, I reasoned, the punishment was far too harch for the theft of a one-dollar slice of pizza. Next I argued that since since “three strikes” laws are not in force in nearly every state, that makes them “unusual”. (I know that the 8th’s use of “unsual” doesn’t mean that, but I’m interpreting it that way.) He countered, “How many chances are you going to give them? If a person shows a pattern of criminality, shouldn’t he be removed from society?” (This is similar to what Chanticleer said, above.) I said that punishment should fit the crime, not be based on a history of behaviour when the “third strike” is markedly less severe than any other crimes the criminal may have committed. I said that our penal system should focus on rehabilitation more than punishment. (Surely we need an element of both, but it is my strong belief that most crime can be eliminated by proper education and conditioning.)
Americans are fed up with crime and criminals. We want to “do something”. Unfortunately, Americans like the immediate gratification of a quick and easy solution. Building prisons and locking criminals up is much, much easier than providing a decent education during a criminal’s formative years, providing an education and job skills (how many jobs are there “on the outside” for license plate stampers?), and teaching criminals how to function in society.
Also, there is a prejudice against people who have been in prison. Some people believe that once a criminal has served his time, he has “paid his debt to society”. If that is true, then the now ex-criminal should be able to return to society and to make a contribution to it. But prejudice often leaves little option for an ex-convict to “go straight”.
Then there are such criminals as rapists. Studies have shown that many of them return to their predatory ways. And there’s where we have a problem. A convict can only be held a finite amount of time. If he’s still dangerous to society at the end of his term, he must be released. Some states are drafting laws that will keep child molesters, rapists and other sex criminals in prison until they are found to be “cured”. This makes sense, but how do we know that a person isn’t a threat? A sex-criminal may be completely rehabilitated and able to function in society, but may be, perhaps for political or “I don’t want to be the one who let him out” reasons, held for the rest of his life.
I think that the “three strikes” law is being over-used. I think that it can be a good tool to keep a small percentage of the criminal community off of the streets. But I don’t think that it should be used arbitrarily or out of laziness, political reasons, or a “cover your ass” mentality.
How would you keep violent criminals off of the streets?
The “stealing a slice of pizza” thing, in the OP’s defense, has happened. California’s version of the three stikes law has a controversial provision where if the first two crimes were clearly felonies, a misdemeanor can constitute your third strike. They call it a “wobbler”. The ACLU claims people have been sent up the river for stealing AA batteries, cake, candy bars, a three pack of T-shirts, etc.
The case currently before the Supreme Court involves a man who is a lifelong heroin addict and was convicted of a couple of home burglaries he committed in 1983. Neither involved violence. In 1995, he shoplifted some videotapes from two different Kmarts, worth a total of about $150. Two crimes…fifty years to life. He’ll be 87 before he’s eligible for parole. You have to admit, that’s pretty excessive for shoplifting.
Yo, Norton, somebody who titles a Pit rant “What the hell is wrong with you Americans” is not “providing useful information about how the rest of the world sees us”–he’s just ranting. :rolleyes:
Here’s more on the “pizza” story.