Crime and Punishment in Connecticut

The New York Times ^ | April 22, 2008

[george76]

NY Slimes.

.

[kromike]

Why not have Hussein simply talk to these scumbags? After all, he can talk anybody into a life of Peace, Love, Hope and Change.

/sarc (as if you needed me to state the obvious)

[L98Fiero]

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.

[dashing doofus]

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.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

A search for “Death Penalty Moratorium” will uncover the real problem.

Start with the American Bar Association.

[Marie2]

Maybe a “one strike and you’re out” would solve the repeated offense problem they are describing.

[CGASMIA68]

Send Jimmy to Hartford....Ignorance is as Ignorence Does(something like that)

[Cobra64]

Maybe a “one strike and you’re out” would solve the repeated offense problem they are describing.

Public executions would stop this mess very quickly.

[george76]

NT Slimes thinking :

It would also not deter the many crimes committed by people who have not committed three violent felonies.

.

[ridesthemiles]

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.

[LostInBayport]

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.

How is a penalty equally applied to all persons who violate a law an injustice?

The real subtext of this quote is that liberals loathe the idea of activist judges losing the ability to let criminals go with nary a slap on the wrist.

There are a lot of judges like that here in Massachusetts, like the s.o.b. who, after being told by two psychiatrists and a district attorney that a convicted pedophile was a threat to the public, let the guy out on his own recognizance because he hadn't raped any children in the previous seven years.

And, yes...the pedophile had been in prison for those seven years. Lots of kids in there, right? A law like this would have prevented the next rape, which did occur mere days later.

[george76]

I have never understood why liberals want criminals released early and often.

[wastedyears]

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.

[machenation]

enough! three strikes=castration+time to get right. 4strikes=lobotomy+
a job paying minimum wage weaving baskets.

[Liz]

"Hey, Pinch. Wanna go down the fruit cellar with me?"

[CGTRWK]

I have never understood why liberals want criminals released early and often.

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.

[Fraxinus]

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.

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.

[Marysecretary]

Why, they worry about themselves and their friends...

[mvpel]

How is a penalty equally applied to all persons who violate a law an injustice?

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.

[Condor51]

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.