In fact, here’s a good example of what I’m talking about. This is a case in which a 13-year old boy killed a playmate. Under Florida law first degree murder of a child carries a mandatory sentence of life without parole, extenuating circumstances be damed. Even the prosecutor - the friggin’ PROSECUTOR - thinks that’s too severe for this particular crime. Heck, even Jeb Bush is troubled by it and is considering reducing the sentence.
Again, it’s the mandatory sentencing part of the three strikes law that bothers me.
Yes, that’s right they could, but they won’t. Mandatory sentencing was a knee-jerk over-reaction to the public perception that judges were getting too lenient. This is a case in which the solution is worse than the problem.
As is often the case, I concur with Gobear. Why is it any of your business how we treat our criminals? From what I’ve seen, we have some of the most fucked up criminals in this country than in an any other. I’ve always understood Three Strikes to relate to serious offenses, associated with violence.
The US is quite civilized and prosperous. But with great entitlement comes great responsibility. If you can’t live within our civilized confines, then go the fuck somewhere else. Unfortunately we can’t just drop off criminals in international waters and tell them don’t come back. The next best place is in prison.
And you know what? I would suppport a “Three Violent Strikes and You’re Dead” law. How many attempted murders, rapes, kidnappings should you be able to perpetrate before you should cease to be? And if my wife/child is violent crime number three (or number one, come to think about it), the safest place you can be is in prison.
I say deport all three-felony criminals to the OP’s country, which apparantly is far more “sivilized.”
Then again, maybe it would be cruel and unusual to subject American criminals to have to live with a bunch of SANCTIMONIOUS FUCKING LOUDMOUTH DUMBASS UNGRATEFUL BASTARD CREEPS!
I’d explain further, but as a Canadian, I’m polite by nature.
Let’s be clear - I am in no way backing up naxox here. But come on, gobear - that’s your argument? That because he’s not American he doesn’t get to comment on what goes on there? Feel free to never say anything about another country’s laws again then. His has his facts wrong and he’s a dick, but “You’re not American, fuck off” is not an argument, it’s arrogance.
But the very problem of the three-strikes laws is that they can’t be over-used or under-used. The crime either fits the three-strikes definition or it doesn’t. There’s no room for judgement of discretion.
Sentence the SOB’s to life in prison without parole if it makes sense, just take a look at all the circumstances in the case before doing so.
And, Duck, even inarticulate rants can provide useful information.
There is ususally more to the story. This guy didn’t just snatch a piece of pizza from a counter where no one was looking. He terrorized a group of children and stole their meal. I wonder what the circumstances were of his other robbery and attempted robbery. Plus he only served six years anyway.
I clearly remember the first three strikes guy in Calfornia. His third strike was a day or two after the law started. The headline read “Man’s third strike was theft of 38 cents.” Except is wasn’t really his third strike. It was like his 10th strike but the law wasn’t in effect for his other ones and he was released to sin again and again. Oh, and the 38 cents, he severely beat the crap out of a drunk and stole everything the drunk had which happened to be 38 cents.
I do have a problem with some aspects of mandatory sentencing. I think that three strikes should be available for the judge to use but not mandatory. The case the pravnik cites is a good example of where is shouldn’t have been used and I hope the Supreme Court agrees. The law needs tweaking but on the whole it’s a good thing.
And what I said to Gobear applies to you too, Macro Man. What business is it of someone who is not American to comment on the way America treats its criminals? By the same logic, what business is it of a person from any country to comment on another’s? Or is it just America that shouldn’t have to put up with people from other countries having opinions on how they run things?
You ask why it’s any business of his how you treat criminals. Perhaps it’s his business because he’s a human being, much the same way it’s America’s and the UK’s business to have opinions on how Saddam treats his criminals. Because we’re part of a wider world.
Yes, but as we’ve shown, we’re not talking about someone who just woke up one morning and decided to commit their first petty theft. These are people who have already committed crimes (and in most states, violent crimes), who know what punishment in jail means and, in many cases, already know how many strikes they have against them and, knowing the punishment, still choose to commit the crime.
OK, I’m woefully underinformed about America so perhaps you can help fight my ignorance. The ‘three strikes’ rule or any other varient of it – does it remove the decision completely from the judge. What I’m asking is if I commit three qualifing crimes and am found guilty is the judge compelled to give me a certain sentance.
Is this along the same lines as the zero tolerance policies ?
I guess I’m asking what circumstances are taken into account – if I’m a reformed criminal with two convictions and I get done twenty years later am I still struck out.
I know these things will vary across states but I’m trying to get an idea – also what are Americans attitudes to this.
For what it’s worth I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea I would just be concerned if the whole thing was ‘set in stone’ so to speak.
I’m attempting to prove that, although the rant does seem more like random taunting than anything else.
No, Francesca, we’re objecting because for no particular reason and with no prior warning he suddenly got right in our faces with, “What the hell is wrong with you Americans?” If he just wanted to discuss our penal code, there are other, and better, ways of phrasing it. :rolleyes:
And goodness knows, we’ve certainly had plenty of Canuck/Yank and Brit/Yank back-and-forths in the Pit, most of them fairly civilized discussions, when all’s said and done, so it’s not like we can’t take “constructive criticism” from outsiders.
We Americans like “once size fits all” solutions. But one size very often doesn’t fit everyone. I disagree with “three strikes” laws because, as bnorton said, they leave no lattitude. I think that habitual criminals should receive harsher sentences for the latest crime they commit. For example, Jerry Dewayne Williams commited crimes before swiping the pizza. What is the penalty for petty theft? I don’t know. But let’s say it’s anything from probation to three years in prison. I think “three strikes” laws should be written so that the convicted person receives the maximum sentence allowed for the current crime. So Jerry Dewayne Williams would have been sentenced to three years. If you want to get tough, then they could be written to mandate a term from the maximum sentence to twice the maximum sentence; in this example, three to six years. What I don’t think we should have are laws that mandate 25 years to life regardless of the offence. Americans pride themselves on their sense of fair-play. Therefore I think that “three strikes” laws should be written so that there is more lattitude in sentencing. As they are now, it has been demonstrated that they are sometimes unfair.
As to “How would you keep violent criminals off of the streets?”, that question was directed toward Naxox_dec.2002.
And regarding Gobear’s post, I agree with Francesca that unless we want to stop telling other countries how to handle their internal affairs, then we should be willing to accept criticism from people of other countries.
I have read many threads on this Board, in which Europeans complain about how violent the US is.
Now, we have a complaint about our (admittedly imperfect) attempts to fix our problems. California did a poor job, but there are mechanisms for change that are being used.
When push comes to shove, I’m against “three-strikes” for pretty much exactly the reasons outlined by bnorton (it helps that I’m from California, the foremost example of the idiocy of overly strict mandatory sentencing laws).
But, as an aside, when it comes down to it, living in a state that has such laws, and having already committed two crimes that fall under the “three-strike” statute, wouldn’t it occur to any halfway intelligent person that it would be a good idea to try your darnedest to avoid committing any crimes?
I mean, almost every single example I’ve seen used against the “three-strikes” concept, my first thought is that idiot did what?!
On preview, I like Johnny L.A.'s idea for re-framing the law.
DDG - the phrase “it’s not your country, it’s ours, so why don’t you fuck right off?” isn’t civilised discussion. He could’ve phrased it better and he’s got his facts wrong. I’ve said so too. But for Gobear to say “it’s not your country, it’s ours, so why don’t you fuck right off” isn’t debating and it isn’t responding to what he said. It’s addressing the fact that he dared to say something in the first place.
Putting aside the issue of naxox being an in-your-face dick, what I take issue with is that attitude - the one that says “it’s not your country, fuck off”. I’m not American, it’s not my country. Do I get to have an opinion about America? Yes I do. So does everyone else.
I know we’ve had plenty of Canuck/Yank and Brit/Yank discussions and I completely agree - most of them are fairly civilised discussions. I’d like to keep it that way, which is why I object to the attitude that because the OP is not American he should shut up. Destroy his arguments in other ways, god knows it’s not hard, but don’t simply say “It’s not your country, you don’t get a say”.
Naxox, it’s very flattering that you seem to think that the SDMB is the one authoritative source on what US citizens think and why, but really, you expect too much of us.
Personally, I think that life in prison is too harsh a sentence for a petty theft, and illustrates that in at least some states, "three- (or two-) strike laws should be rewritten to focus on aggravated or violent crimes. It’s true that some states impose these excessive penalties. It’s also true, apparently, that you based your OP rant on hearsay, and couldn’t be bothered to verify your facts before posting. This suggests that you are not particularly interested in an answer to your question, and that you are, in fact, a bigot.
Now I’ll ask you a direct question: why have you been so confrontational in your posts here?