Posted on 11/07/2004 2:32:32 PM PST by SmithL
But that begs the question; "How do we get them to stop committing crimes?". Three strikes is called "deterrence".
Keep it simple. Just call it 2 strikes- end of debate.
If a guy is being convicted of three crimes, he is in crime.
The last crime may be a misdemeanor, but what is any two time loser doing having any more run-ins with the law.
Three strikes purpose was to take the career criminal off the streets.
Being convicted for three different crimes would indicate that is exactly what you are.
One of the cases the Libs love to point to is a guy whose third strike was stealing a cookie. Of course they fail to mention that he had broken into a bakery and was trying to open the safe when he was caught.
I know! When anyone tells me about some murderer who got out of jail and was sent back there after stealing a pizza, I always ask the bleeding heart, "When was the last time YOU stole a pizza?" Give me a break. Seems to me if a killer is lucky enough to get out of jail and stupid enough to steal a pizza, we should throw his a-- back in the slammer without regret.
LOL! This is another one of Soros' pet campaigns.
if you have two strikes against you and you decide that you wanna piss your life away over a snicker bar then so be it
In California under "Three Strikes and You Are Out" there is judicial discretion=the judge decides when to apply "strikes."
This article mentions non-violent crimes, and states it wasn't the intent of the original proposition that it apply to same.
Wrong. It WAS intended to apply to habitual, repeat criminals.
If somebody comes up with a reasonable refinement to the existing law, it will pass. The recent proposition had too many loopholes, and would have sent bad guys into society.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
They need to be honest and tell the true reason they are fighting this law: To get more voters for RAT candidates.
I am glad I voted against this stupid proposition. 3 strikes means just that. If you have two felonies and you don't want to spend the rest of your life in jail, then you should probably not steal a bottle of aspirin or anything else. The fact that these people committed another crime shows that they probably committed crimes we are not aware of and the small one was the one they were caught for. The bleeding heart liberals can go jump in a lake. There is a reason the crime rate is lower since 3 strikes....but I guess they can't figure that one out.
Yes, I forgot to put that in my last post. The reason these seem like small crimes is because they were committed while on parole and any crime you commit on parole is a felony. The do gooders forget to tell you that or don't care. Don't want to go to jail for life? Don't do any felonies. Yes, sometimes innocent people are put in jail, but since DNA that is happening less and less. Also if you are in for 3 felonies then you are most likely guilty. Hard to imagine anyone being convicted of three felonies erroneously.
Several years ago, while on a trip to San Francisco, I attended the first showing of a documentary on the problems of California's 3-strikes law. It featured the father of Polly Klaas, whose murder (as I recall) helped lead to the present law. It seemed like a convincing presentation, but now I'm not so sure. Reason I wonder? The documentary maker was Michael Moore!
>>Keep it simple. Just call it 2 strikes- end of debate.
Or "Two strikes and a foul tip!" :)
"How do we get them to stop committing crimes?". Three strikes is called "deterrence".
Change 25-life to amputation of both hands.
Mantras like this furnish zero information about whether the punishment is just or not.
If not mistaken, that's what the law requires now. "Non violent felonies" (fraud, etc.) do not count.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.