One would think so at first blush, but most criminals jump at the chance to plead to a lesser charge without thought to the viability of their future criminal career.
They had a choice to accept the plea bargain or reject it and take their chances. They deserved to know what impact such a plea bargain would have on them.
They still have the choice of what impact it will have on them. Simply cease to commit further felonies, and it will have none at all. I've managed to go through my whole life without committing a single one.
Given your willingness to accept the present laws, I wonder just what value you see in protections against double jeopardy or ex post facto. Why not just do away with them.
If a prosecutor thinks he can get a conviction in a second trial, despite an acquittal, why not let them try? If the legislature sees fit to criminalize an act, why not allow prosecution of people who committed the act prior to the legislation?
Strawman argument. As I have repeatedly and patiently pointed out, Three Strikes violates neither double jeopardy, nor ex post facto. Your continued insistence, without any counterargument, that 3S does so notwithstanding. Therefore the idea that I would support laws that do, in fact, violate the 5th A. holds no water.
I asked WHY you support the protections of prohibition against double jeopardy and ex post facto. I can't understand WHY. What is so special about those limitations that you support them but you see nothing wrong with convicting a person of recidivism using a crime committed prior to the recidivism statute as a basis for the charge. We disagree about whether the three-strikes law, as applied to convictions prior to three-strikes legislation, is an ex post facto law. Fine. Let's disagree.
Now I am asking WHY you think it is so unfair to try a person twice for the same crime. If just one of two juries finds a person guilty why is that not enough for a conviction? WHY NOT hold a person accountable for behavior that is criminal even though it wasn't criminal at the time of commission? If the legislature decides that an act is criminal, why does it matter that the act was committed prior to enactment?
And finally ... WHY NOT exclude felonies committed prior to the enactment of three-strikes laws from consideration? What creates the need to pass a law which even some of us believes violates ex post facto?
What is your opinion of trying someone under federal law for violating a person's civil rights by killing them after they have been found not guilty in a state court of murder? Is that not double jeopardy? Or is there some nuance I have missed in this case also?