Bleeding heart idiots...

[carnut]

Here in California, there is a 3 strikes and you're out law. After the third felony, you get a long sentence. (I think it should be 2 strikes myself) A group of people are trying to amend it by saying that non-violent criminals should be exempt. WTF, so it's okay for a non-violent criminal to just keep on doing non-violent crimes without any fear of being put away for a long time? I've served on a jury once, before the 3 strikes law where a convicted robber, was in and out of jail every 30 days for 10 years because he knew he wouldn't serve more than 30 days at a time for each robbery. COME ON YOU BLEEDING HEART IDIOTS, MURDERS, RAPE AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES START FROM THESE SO CALLED NON-VIOLENT CRIMES, AND WHAT ABOUT THE VICTIMS? THEY CARRY THE BURDEN OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CRIMES WHEN THE CRIMINAL JUST DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT. WAKE UP YOU IDIOTS!

[Oz]

All the way.

[ac427cpe]

mondo agreementage

[texan]

The argument stems from several third strike life sentences being handed down for petty felony. For example, a bad person has been convicted of two felonies (both serious). Said person then gets pinched for stealing a car stereo, only this stereo is worth $500 and he did another $500 in damages to the vehicle getting in and out. That'd be felony burglary according to the letter of the law, and the person would essentially get sent up for life because he stole a stereo.

While this is an exceptional example, it does beg an important question. At what point does the thee strikes rule go beyond proper justice (where the punishment should fit the crime) and into severe condemnation for crimes that can potentially be trivial in the scheme of things? Does a judge or jury feel justified in sending a man to prison for life because he stole a car stereo? The argument isn't whether or not he is a felon, but whether or not the punishment fits the crime. According to the three strikes rule, that earlier example could include this same poor fool breaking into three such cars and being convicted of it three times; he'll still spend the rest of his life in prison for what ARE essentially petty crimes. He certainly isn't a good person, but sending someone away for life is very serious and should be done in a carefully weighed and judged manner, not simply because this is his third felony.

For the record I completely understand what you're saying and for the most part think the three strikes law is a decent idea, but such catch-all legislation inevitably leads to the examples I put forth, where an honest person is challenged to essentially end a man's free life because he did something stupid (but not dangerous to anyone). Hence the argument to exempt such crimes from consideration.

[taranaki]

Apparently,committing multiple rape offences[with jail terms between each] is justifiable grounds for New Zealand law to allow for the offender to be 'detained at her Majesty's pleasure',a quaint term for 'locked up for an unspecified length of time'.Unfortunately,the woolly thinkers on the parole board are of the opinion that if a serial rapist can behave himself for long enough in jail,he should be released.The proposition that he cannot offend against women while serving time,and therefore finds it relatively easy to behave,never occured to these morons.

We now have the bizzarre situation where a national newspaper took the step of publishing his name,address and photograph,along with details of his crimes,and his jail-time misdemeanors,on a daily basis.The paper also published 'expert' comment on why this release was bad for the community at large,and a large number of letters from the public all throwing their 2 cents into the pot.

Clearly there is a body of opinion that feels that this man is a danger to the public,and there is a body responsible for his incarceration that believes he is not.Statistically,rapists have a high rate of reoffending,and this man has previously gone so far as to reoffend while on 'rehabilitation' leave from jail.

I agree that there are times when the law seems draconian,but by far the bigger threat to society is when the preventive element is not strong enough.If an individual gets an unusually harsh sentence,it generally affects fewer people than if the sentence is not sufficient deterrent.

[carnut]

Originally posted by texan
.

For the record I completely understand what you're saying and for the most part think the three strikes law is a decent idea, but such catch-all legislation inevitably leads to the examples I put forth, where an honest person is challenged to essentially end a man's free life because he did something stupid (but not dangerous to anyone). Hence the argument to exempt such crimes from consideration.

In my example, the robbery suspect used a gun, but never pulled the trigger. He knew the law so well, he represented himself in court. Some of the jurors actually tried to aquit him. It took us days to get a guilty conviction. So, until he pulls the trigger, he knew 30 days was the maximum he would get. I don't know about you, but I've been a victim of crimes several times, and I don't have any sympathy for any CRIMINAL, especially when he/she knew what they were doing.

[YogsVR4]

I don't understand how the violent felons ever get out of jail - ever. Fuck them. I could care less about the 3 strikes rule. Its there only because the system fails to keep these fuckers in jail to begin with.