3 Strikes and You're Out Laws

[Dos Equis]

it reduces the amount of crime committed by the ppl who are put in prison as a result of...

Exactly. 

[tu_holmes]

it reduces the amount of crime committed by the ppl who are put in prison as a result of...

You mean those 97% of inmates who in prison for non-violent crimes? Those people?

[Skip8282]

it reduces the amount of crime committed by the ppl who are put in prison as a result of...

Yes, but it would seem the effect has to be greater to justify the sentence.  The arbitrary nature you mentioned earlier means the slightest of felons are suffering the same as hardest and the sentencing disparaties arising from 1 or 2 time violent felons seems to make a mockery of the process.

If it's just about punishment, then putting a man in a 6X8 cell for life over $230.00 should be cruel and unusual (IMO - fuck the SCOTUS).

And Mal pointed out the incredible costs were paying over $230.00!!  That's insane.

If it's about punishment and deterence, then I can find no study indicating that "3" is the correct number.

[tonymctones]

You mean those 97% of inmates who in prison for non-violent crimes? Those people?

very misleading, so the majority are in for non violent offenses.

That doesnt mean they arent involved in violent offenses, they arent involved in crime that while they may not be commiting violence attracts and inhibits violence.

To think that a person who traffics drugs doesnt play a role in the violence that the drugs create even if they themselves arent commiting the violence is assinine.

[tonymctones]

Yes, but it would seem the effect has to be greater to justify the sentence.  The arbitrary nature you mentioned earlier means the slightest of felons are suffering the same as hardest and the sentencing disparaties arising from 1 or 2 time violent felons seems to make a mockery of the process.

If it's just about punishment, then putting a man in a 6X8 cell for life over $230.00 should be cruel and unusual (IMO - fuck the SCOTUS).

And Mal pointed out the incredible costs were paying over $230.00!!  That's insane.

If it's about punishment and deterence, then I can find no study indicating that "3" is the correct number.

im not familiar with the 230 but it doesnt matter to me ok so this guy may have just picked a shitty place to rob or the wrong person. What if the place they robbed had thousands?

its not the amount that is in question its the actions of the person...

when ppl knock off convient stores at gun point we have to have a tiered system taking into account how much the register had at the time of robbery?

these shit heads decided to commit a felony for the 3rd time and may have just picked a place with little money, maybe they just changed out registers...

[tu_holmes]

very misleading, so the majority are in for non violent offenses.

That doesnt mean they arent involved in violent offenses, they arent involved in crime that while they may not be commiting violence attracts and inhibits violence.

To think that a person who traffics drugs doesnt play a role in the violence that the drugs create even if they themselves arent commiting the violence is assinine.

The government plays just as much a role in that violence then, because they made the drug illegal and deemed it "evil".

The demand didn't change, only the method of supply.

You say my figure is misleading, but I say that non-violence is non-violence.

[George Whorewell]

I don't like mandatory minimums for any criminal conviction-- but predicate felons should be kept away from the public.

However, I don't like the idea of felony possession of a controlled substance 15 years ago+ mail fraud 8 years ago + felony DWI (no accident or any injury sustained to anyone, just blew a high BAC)= Life in prison

To me, non violent drug related offenses should be off the list, certain white collar offenses should be off the list etc.

[tonymctones]

The government plays just as much a role in that violence then, because they made the drug illegal and deemed it "evil".

The demand didn't change, only the method of supply.

You say my figure is misleading, but I say that non-violence is non-violence.

LOL ok the govt is as much to blame, we going to arrest them?

thats fine if you want to stick your head in the sand and not look at reality.

But the fact is that even a common level drug dealer needs a supplier, that supplier wouldnt exist without the common level drug dealer and the violence the supplier commits in the process of his illegal activity wouldnt exist without the common level drug dealers...

now I agree that they arent pulling the trigger but to think that they dont play a role in the violence is again assinine.

Thats like saying only the person who pulled the trigger in the robbery should be charged with murder not their accomplice.

to think that drugs isnt synonmous with violence is just plain naive and even if youre not the one commiting the violence you know that somewhere up or down the line violence is happening b/c of it...

[tonymctones]

I don't like mandatory minimums for any criminal conviction-- but predicate felons should be kept away from the public.

However, I don't like the idea of felony possession of a controlled substance 15 years ago+ mail fraud 8 years ago + felony DWI (no accident or any injury sustained to anyone, just blew a high BAC)= Life in prison

To me, non violent drug related offenses should be off the list, certain white collar offenses should be off the list etc.

Ill agree with the time limit thing

[Option D]

I don't like mandatory minimums for any criminal conviction-- but predicate felons should be kept away from the public.

However, I don't like the idea of felony possession of a controlled substance 15 years ago+ mail fraud 8 years ago + felony DWI (no accident or any injury sustained to anyone, just blew a high BAC)= Life in prison

To me, non violent drug related offenses should be off the list, certain white collar offenses should be off the list etc.

Mal likes this

[Agnostic007]

Severity of the crime, the person's overall background, impact on the victim, etc.  But I have no problem with the concept.  For example, if someone broke into a house on three separate occasions with a weapon and robbed someone at gunpoint, with a knife, etc. and was convicted on all three occasions I'd have no problem with him being put away for life.  

agreed

[Agnostic007]

3 is arbitrary. Some people, tired of career criminals constantly preying on citizens sat around and discussed what would be a fair number of crimes one could be convicted of before it's clear they are too stupid to learn from their "mistakes" and will do it again if given the chance. Everyone figured 1 wasn't fair, everyone can make a mistake. And while those gathered at the table had gotten through their entire lives thus far without even one arrest, they understood it could happen. So someone suggested 2 strikes.. This seemed much more fair as the likelyhood of snaring good people who just made a mistake seemed less likely. But they were cautious and fair minded  people so they voted to err on the side of the citizen and voted 3 strikes. They figured anyone who was convicted 3 times for a crime probably wasn't going to be a productive member of society and the world would be better off without them..

Kudos to them for trying..they just didn't figure on the unintended consequences. If we had judges with common sense and would send career criminals away for a long time we wouldn't need mandatory rules that try and achieve that result.

[Skip8282]

3 is arbitrary. Some people, tired of career criminals constantly preying on citizens sat around and discussed what would be a fair number of crimes one could be convicted of before it's clear they are too stupid to learn from their "mistakes" and will do it again if given the chance. Everyone figured 1 wasn't fair, everyone can make a mistake. And while those gathered at the table had gotten through their entire lives thus far without even one arrest, they understood it could happen. So someone suggested 2 strikes.. This seemed much more fair as the likelyhood of snaring good people who just made a mistake seemed less likely. But they were cautious and fair minded  people so they voted to err on the side of the citizen and voted 3 strikes. They figured anyone who was convicted 3 times for a crime probably wasn't going to be a productive member of society and the world would be better off without them..

Kudos to them for trying..they just didn't figure on the unintended consequences. If we had judges with common sense and would send career criminals away for a long time we wouldn't need mandatory rules that try and achieve that result.

Yeah, I think it is a direct result of poor decision making by judges and probably media spectacles when they do occur help push it.