Supreme Court Ruling Puts "3 Strikes Out" Laws In Doubt

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | 3/8/05 | Michael McGough

[kiriath_jearim]

Supreme Court ruling puts '3 strikes, out' laws in doubt Court limits prior conviction evidence Tuesday, March 08, 2005 By Michael McGough, Post-Gazette National Bureau WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court, which last summer threw federal criminal sentencing into confusion with a ruling that it took seven months to clarify, created additional uncertainty yesterday with a decision dealing with the role of prior convictions in setting punishment for a new crime. At risk, at least in the view of some legal observers, are "three strikes and you're out" laws that impose harsh penalties on repeat violent offenders. In another decision, the court made it easier for prisoners to challenge denials of parole using a civil rights law passed after the Civil War. In the sentencing case, the justices ruled 5-3 (with Chief Justice William Rehnquist not participating) that a Massachusetts man who pleaded guilty to a firearms charge could not receive an extra 12 years in prison as a "career criminal" because of inadequate proof that his prior convictions were for violent felonies.

[BJungNan]

To some degree, you're right. But the problem in your reasoning comes in when the first crime (or strike) was for a lesser crime. For example, if someone commits burglary but later moves up to armed robbery,

You may be putting limits on the sentence for burglery that I am not. I would make that a minimum of five years. That would be for breaking into someone's house without a gun.

And the jail would be a compound, not a modern prison. The necessities of life would be there - food, shelter, washing facilities. But, it would be a long boring 5 years with no TV, no weight rooms. Clean safe and the most boring place. The cooks would prepare only English food (except no fish and chips).

On the armed burglery, it would be 10 years of the same.

[BJungNan]

In a perfect world, I agree with you that the punishments for each individual crime would be enough to stop any future crimes. But unfortunately, even in states that have harsher sentences, repeat crimes happen.

It works in other countries. It can work here also. States that have "harsher" sentences does not mean they have sentences that are harsh enough.

Take Singapore. Very low crime rate. English law and a fair trial. Most people "don't do it" because they know the consequences are harsh. The ones that do, they get tough sentences and don't do it again.

If people are repeating crimes, then sentences and the prison conditions simply were not harsh enough. There is nothing complicated about it.

[Go Gordon]

I'm sorry for your loss. Could you share your story of having family members raped or murdered?

Okay smartass, my cousin was shot in Philly. The perp had a rap sheet a mile long. My uncle, although not raped, was killed by a drunk driver who had dozens of DUI's and had already killed someone in a previuos DUI caused accident. Personally, I was mugged when I was a young adult by a bunch of thugs with priors longer than your sleeve.

Next time, take your smugness elsewhere, pal.

[Go Gordon]

Oh, and if you are looking for rape, a classmate of mine was raped and murdered. Never did catch the guy, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it wasn't the first time.