'3-strikes' Laws Not Justice at its Best

Dayton Daily News ^ | March 7, 2003 | Dayton Daily News Editorial Staff

[eno_]

There are some issues of threshold: Lately felonies have been cheapened to the point where the stuff in your garage is probably a federal environmental felony. Do away with "trash" felonies and that would be a good reform of three strikes.

It isn't just users that clog up the jails. Trafficing, while it is widely viewed as a nasty crime, doesn't affect people outside the drug culture very much. And the definition of trafficing has also been cheapened to give prosecutors more leverage in extracting plea bargains. Pot growers are generally the quietest people in the neighborhood. If you are trying to minimize violent and property crime, it is wasteful to lock them up.

The goal is to put the criminals that break into houses, rob stores, and mug people into jail until they are too old for the game. Everything else, like most drug and white-collar crime, that fills up an already very large prison system is just extra cost to the taxpayer without much benefit. Reforming this stuff would not be an issue if the costs were not so large and the prison population so large. But as it is, it needs more focus.

[tpaine]

"Each state has the power to regulate crime as it sees fit, ~within the Bill of Rights~."
-fs-

Yep, and imo, 'life for stealing a golf ball' is cruel & unusual punishment, covered by the 8th.

And, as you also noted, - "We control the laws. We get the laws we want and can change the ones we don't like." - Well, the USSC should have told the state of CA to change/reframe this 'unusually' stupid one. -- That's what we hire them for.

[dirtboy]

Yep, and imo, 'life for stealing a golf ball' is cruel & unusual punishment, covered by the 8th.

Allowing prior crimes to a factor in determining punishment for a new crime is hardly new, nor is it cruel or unusual (and, BTW, the theft was of three golf clubs, worth $1,200 - hardly petty crime). So the punishment was not just for the crime but for a series of crimes, to someone who is demonstrating that they are a repeat criminal. I think it was a stupid application in this case, but not unconstitutional - the law was in place at the time the perp committed the crime, and this will also give pause to those who thinks they can commit mid-level crimes for years on end without ever facing serious consequences.

[tpaine]

If, as you say, - "it was a stupid application in this case, but not unconstitutional" - how long do we allow our legislators to keep making stupid mis-applications of law that infringe, - just a little bit, - on our liberties?

We are seeing the result of allowing these 'stupid' appeasement policies right now in the regulating away of gun rights in this state.
Perhaps these regulators are not the ones that are being stupid.

[dirtboy]

If, as you say, - "it was a stupid application in this case, but not unconstitutional" - how long do we allow our legislators to keep making stupid mis-applications of law that infringe, - just a little bit, - on our liberties? We are seeing the result of allowing these 'stupid' appeasement policies right now in the regulating away of gun rights in this state. Perhaps these regulators are not the ones that are being stupid.

First of all, what we disagree upon is whether the application of the California three-strikes law in this case for a $1,2000 theft against a perp with prior convictions is unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment. You think it is, I disagree, and we'll just have to leave it there. But it is within the proper realm of the powers of the state of California to pass laws regarding sentencing, whereas the State of California has no business under the Constitution trying to deny gun owners their right to own guns. So IMO the three strikes case is a borderline matter where reasonable people can disagree, whereas their gun-grabbing is clearly in the wrong and not a good analogy to the three-strikes case.

[tpaine]

whatever

[HighWheeler]

"Yep, and imo, 'life for stealing a golf ball' is cruel & unusual punishment, covered by the 8th.

This is not why the perp would be getting life in your exaggerated example. They would be getting life for expending all their volunteered time and energy in meeting the requirements for the 3 strikes law. This required the perp to endure a couple of legal "timeouts" first. The only thing that would be cruel in this case would be inflicting such an idiot perp on the rest of us by releasing him.

No one else forced him to violate the laws.

That ye sow, so shall ye reap.

[HighWheeler]

"...how long do we allow our legislators to keep making stupid mis-applications of law that infringe, - just a little bit, - on our liberties?

"...how long do we allow our criminals to keep making stupid mis-applications of law that infringe, - just a little bit, - on our liberties?

[RJL]

But the best case against "three-strike" sentences is that justice ought to be individually tailored. Society should want judges to be judges--taking one case at a time and having to account for their decisions.

This is the rub isn't it? The judges were not acting responsibly.
Judges continually released repeat offenders into society and the criminals continued their criminal acts, so society changed the laws so judges had no choice.

The judges, by their actions, created the three strikes laws.

[tpaine]

"...how long do we allow our criminals to keep making stupid mis-applications of law that infringe, - just a little bit, - on our liberties?

There will ~always~ be criminals among us.
The trick is to make constitutional laws that will keep down crime without infringing on our individual liberties.

I haven't seen ~any~ made in the 20th century that filled that test at all.
-- And the ones made recently, in this new century, may be some of the worse ever. - We will see.

[cinFLA]

(correction)

Sorry, but 'common sense' is self-evident to rational people STONED LIBERTARIANS.

[Ben Bolt]

5-4 .. That was close .

[tpaine]

Back from another 'liquid lunch' are you?

[cinFLA]

Back from another 'liquid lunch' are you? Still tokin' and ranting. When will you ..

1) Remove the fake quote,
2) Get treatment for your pedeophilia problems,
3) Stop ranting and offer some real solutions.

[tpaine]

"The difference between a good law and a bad law is that a bad law creates criminals, while a good law identifies them." -- R. Alex Whitlock

[HighWheeler]

I read that quote and thought it was pretty bad, so I looked up this "R. Alex Whitlock" on google.

"R. Alex Whitlock is the primary author of the site. He is a freelance writer presently working on his second novel and working a solo IT position for an oil services company in the Houston area."

[tpaine]

Wow, -- I guess you sure exposed him! - As what?

And do present your argument as to why the quote is 'pretty bad'. -- Or is that your idea of a reasoned rebutal?

[HighWheeler]

For the sake of argument, to avoid laws such as those that say July 4th is a Holiday, etc., assume that every law is either good, or it is bad.

Name for me either one "good" or one "bad" law that doesn't create criminals and at the same time doesn't identify criminals.

The words "create" and "identify" are interchangeable in this context, therefore "R. Alex Whitlock" has made a stupid attempt at a maxim.

(Gun control, traffic, tax, libel, narcotic drug, you fill in the blank) laws simultaneously create and identify (define) the criminal.

[tpaine]

"The difference between a good law and a bad law is that a bad law creates criminals, while a good law identifies them." -- R. Alex Whitlock

The words "create" and "identify" are interchangeable in this context, therefore "R. Alex Whitlock" has made a stupid attempt at a maxim.

Paraphased:
'Bad law, based on prohibitions of property, create criminals'
- 'Good law defines crime & identifies criminals'

(Gun control, traffic, tax, libel, narcotic drug, you fill in the blank) laws simultaneously create and identify (define) the criminal.

Nope, -- drug & gun control laws attempt to prohibit the supposed evil 'property'.
Traffic & libel laws define the crime, -- 'identify' those criminal behaviors.

[HighWheeler]

Good job, tpaine, on your post, you sunk that stupid attempt at the maxim by "R. Alex Whitlock".

The fact that you had to paraphrase it, and that it requires so many words to resolve the difference between criminal property and criminal behavior proves that the "maxim" is meaningless.

It just has no impact without all that supporting verbiage. "R. Alex Whitlock" thinks there is a difference between what is created and what is identified when a law is passed. He should have mentioned your problem with it, the difference between property and behavior.

I found a hilarious site here http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog/arch5_01.htm which is apparently his, where he puts his meaningless maxim in with those of famous people. Sure, his attempt has never been picked up outside his own crucible, but he still feels it is worthy to be placed with those of famous people.

That "R. Alex Whitlock" is a sad, sad little man.