[Mr. Silverback]

Yes, but is the problem three strikes, or including too many crimes in three strikes? Earley comes out against three strikes. I believe that if the three felonies are all serious violent crimes, three strikes is exactly what needs to be done. The fact that some idiotswant to include crimes that don't belong just means the laws need to be reformed, not done away with.

[after dark]

I know your comment is not directed at me ,but I want to respond anyways.

I agree three strikes is perfect for violent victimizers .

There are on the other hand people who benefit by building prisons and keeping them full. I believe those people are responsible for the lack of mercy that many poor and uneducated people receive from our legal system.

[after dark]

The people who want to throw the book at petty criminals are not stupid. They are greedy and calculating.

It is not out of a humanitarian love that they would want petty criminals caned but because they could not make as much money off of caning as they can off of warehousing human flesh.

[coloradan]

I don't have a problem with three strikes in general, but I think far too many crimes are "violent felonies" that shouldn't be. As I wrote, The State considers mere possession of a gun that's 1/8" too short, or more than x oz of pot a "violent felony," even though no one, not even a fly, is hurt by such possession. I agree with the need to reform laws - let's start by throwing out some gun control laws.