Three strikes and you're out.

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by manifold, Mar 5, 2008.

  1. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +728
    I think it would be more appropriate to call it the '3rd times a charm' rule. Yes judges need some latitude to do with people on a case by case basis....on strikes one and two. When you get to the third it's time to stop being nice, treat a fuck as a fuck up.
     
  2. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    37,588
    Thanks Received:
    5,476
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +24,180
    I don't know, I'm back and forth about this issue. I do think someone should be punished extra for habitually offending. If you can't show that you've learned your lesson after 2 other times getting in trouble for it, then you probably don't deserve to live among the law abiding citizens in freedom.

    The purpose of it has just as much to do with deterrence as it does with actual punishment.

    There are some people who just shouldn't be allowed to live amongst the rest of society.

    Where I think it's fuzzy is, you can commit a SERIOUS felony, and then commit a felony that almost shouldn't even be considered a crime to begin with...but they both go against you, regardless.

    Getting caught with 50 grams of weed in NJ is a felony. Should that go towards your 3 strikes?

    At least it's a state issue, I guess. If you don't like the way your state has it set up, you can move.
     
  3. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,573
    I'd rather it be one strike, depending on the definition of 'strike'.

    Yes.
    Else, there's nothing to keep some judge from giving a mass murderer 30 days probation.

    Judges judge according to the law.
    As such, they do what the law says they can do.
    Beleive me -- you'd rather have judges bound by the law than not.
     
  4. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +361
    I just hope that you would not be the judge. Imagine the mistakes that you might make.

    With the 3-strikes-law, judges don't have to worry about what sentence to give a shoplifter

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/02/08/MN218794.DTL

    In the latest blow to California's "three strikes" law, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday that it is unconstitutional to sentence a felon to 25 years to life for shoplifting.
     
  5. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,573
    Thus, the appeals process.

    What part of "depending on the definition of 'strike'" dont you understand?
     
  6. Dr Grump
    Offline

    Dr Grump Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    23,544
    Thanks Received:
    3,411
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    From the Back of Beyond
    Ratings:
    +6,070
    Yeah, that's so likely to happen. Using extreme examples that will NEVER happen does not help your argument.

    I agree with minimum mandatory in some instances, but the law should include a waiver that allows a judge to use their discretion. To me there is a big difference between someone being convicted of shoplifting a packet of Oreos on three different occasions as opposed to some conman fleeces retirees of their life savings on three separate occasions.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,754
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,782
  8. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    If they are idiotic, they get appealed. I've noticed the difference between how rulings get reported to the public, and the actual facts of the case. Give judges the leniency they need to sentence fairly.

    People are held accountable. We have one of the highest incarcerated rates in the world. Its not because crime is somehow so much more profitable here than it is in other countries.
     
  9. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Its called the appeal process.


    Concerning mandatory minimums? Actually I'd rather now.
     
  10. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    I'm curious to read the facts of the first case...got a cite, or know where to get one?

    As for the second case, he got probation for violating the terms of his probation , not for molesting anyone. Why he never went to jail in the first place was because of a plea bargain, not a judges ruling. If you want to rail against the plea bargaining system, be my guest.
     

Share This Page