[eno_]

The only thing wrong with three strikes is the Drug War.

IF three strikes were applied to violent and property crime, it would work as intended.

With the solution and reporting rates as low as they are, three strikes actually means 147 strikes. People bagged by three strikes (again excluding drug offenses) are the criminals causing most of the property damage and violence.

[tpaine]

I have nothing against the concept of three strikes, -- the devils in the details. - And the details of the present laws allow ludicrous results.

Which the USSC compounds by, in effect, shrugging and saying "do what you like" -- to the states.
They 'shrug away' violations of individual rights, imo.

[Lurker]

"The only thing wrong with three strikes is the Drug War. "

Give the man a cigar...

"IF three strikes were applied to violent and property crime, it would work as intended."

This particular mook was convicted of stealing golf clubs for his 'magic 3rd' if I'm not mistaken. Golf clubs are property, last time I checked.

I have no problem with 3 time losers being sent away forever. It's not like they weren't warned or anything. I just want to see it applied to rapists, thieves, and burglars instead of some poor sap who gets popped with a couple of joints in his pocket.

L

[SENTINEL]

"The only thing wrong with three strikes is the Drug War."

The "three strikes" means three felonies. I may be mistaken, having no personal experience in this matter, but I believe that only drug growers and dealers are charged with felonies. This law does not intend to put away Beavis and Butthead for life for getting caught three times smoking pot.

This law was passed by the Californians (SENTINEL=former Californian) to CONTROL THE LIBERAL JUDGES, not necessarily the criminals.