Public executions would stop this mess very quickly.
Posted on 04/22/2008 2:06:24 PM PDT by george76
Two horrifying crimes have exposed serious weaknesses in Connecticut’s criminal justice system. But a “three strikes and you’re out” law proposed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell and Republicans in the Legislature would do more harm than good.
Last July two recently paroled men broke into a home in Cheshire and tortured and murdered three people.
Last month a man who served more than eight years for assaulting a 5-year-old — and had been out on probation for less than a month — broke into a New Britain home. He accosted two women, wounding one and killing the other.
Republicans, led by Ms. Rell, have responded by calling for a “three strikes” law. Democrats have rightly resisted.
The proposed law, which would mandate life in prison for anyone convicted of three violent felonies, is a bumper-sticker solution that would create injustices by barring judges’ discretion in sentencing.
It would also not deter the many crimes committed by people who have not committed three violent felonies.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
.
/sarc (as if you needed me to state the obvious)
There’s a brain-dead liberal for you.
“Crime will get worse if sentences are more strict and longer. Crime will get better if we free the criminals and enroll them in some taxpayer supported ‘program’.”
A child knows better.
SOBs at the NY Times oppose any Second Amendment right for citizens to have arms. Both of these incidents could have been avoided.
The Times never links their anti 2A message with horrific crime stories like this.
A search for “Death Penalty Moratorium” will uncover the real problem.
Start with the American Bar Association.
Maybe a “one strike and you’re out” would solve the repeated offense problem they are describing.
Send Jimmy to Hartford....Ignorance is as Ignorence Does(something like that)
Public executions would stop this mess very quickly.
It would also not deter the many crimes committed by people who have not committed three violent felonies.
.
I don’t believe criminals should get 3 bites at the apple that is society.
One strike is enough for me. KEEP THEM INSIDE the walls of the prison.
There are far too many stories about someone out of prison or on parole after a stint in prison going out and committing another crime- often worse- within a very few days.
I have never understood why liberals want criminals released early and often.
No, NYT is actually right. Why give criminals the chance to murder one person, get a few years, come out, murder three more people, get a few more years, then get out again, and then murder five people, then FINALLY, get life in prison? That’s nine souls that person has taken, before they’re put in jail for good.
"Hey, Pinch. Wanna go down the fruit cellar with me?"
I have two theories on this, depending on my current level of cynicism.
Maybe they're just softhearted. Their enclaves - gated communities, academia, etc - are far enough removed from the thugs they refuse to punish that they genuinely don't see the consequences if they refuse to look.
Less charitably, the recidivist mayhem is an intentional scheme to build support for bigger government. Let thugs run free, restrict normal people from defending themselves, and come election day we will - they hope - vote them more surveillance and control powers so they can defend us.
Yes this is blunt and in many cases less than just, but there would not be widespread support for laws like this if judges were not abusing their discretion by giving career criminals 6-8 wrist slaps.
Why, they worry about themselves and their friends...
In California, I recall that one fellow's third felony "strike" - carrying a 25-to-life sentence - was shoplifting $45 worth of videos, since theft by a convicted felon, in any dollar amount, carries an enhanced sentence. "Petty theft with a prior," they call it.
The proposed law, which would mandate life in prison for anyone convicted of three violent felonies, is a bumper-sticker solution that would create injustices by barring judges’ discretion in sentencing. It would also not deter the many crimes committed by people who have not committed three violent felonies.
"Injustices"? Just what part of "Three Violent Felonies" don't they understand.
And that last part, even for the NY Slimes, that one of dumbest things I've seen in quiet a while.
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.