Three strikes and you're out.

[manifold]

Is there anyone left that still thinks the three strike laws were a good idea?

Is minimum mandatory sentencing of any kind really a good idea?

Why bother having judges at all if we're not going to allow them to judge?

Any thoughts?

 

[Diuretic]

Bad, bad idea. Really stupid idea. Populist politics at its worst.

It was tried in the Northern Territory jurisdiction in Australia, it failed miserably and produced spectacularly bad situations, so bad the even though a bunch of populist politicians had passed it thinking it would enhance their opportunities t getting back into government, public reaction was so negative that they lost the following election.

 

[manifold]

Bad, bad idea. Really stupid idea. Populist politics at its worst.

It was tried in the Northern Territory jurisdiction in Australia, it failed miserably and produced spectacularly bad situations, so bad the even though a bunch of populist politicians had passed it thinking it would enhance their opportunities t getting back into government, public reaction was so negative that they lost the following election.

I agree. Terrible idea.

We place our trust in a justice system to determine guilt and innocence. I don't know why then it's not sufficient to also trust judges to exercise sound judgement and hand out just sentences. To try to apply black and white rules to matters of such nuance and subjectivity is to try to dehumanize the process.

 

[Ravi]

To try to apply black and white rules to matters of such nuance and subjectivity is to try to dehumanize the process.

Excellent point.

None of the emoticons were expressive enough to express my feelings on reading that sentence.

 

[William Joyce]

I'm not soft on crime, but it's a pretty dumb idea. Ditto for sex offender identification... it makes soccer moms feel good, but legislation-by-talk-radio ain't a great idea. Knock off the gimmicks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm not soft on crime, but it's a pretty dumb idea. Ditto for sex offender identification... it makes soccer moms feel good, but legislation-by-talk-radio ain't a great idea. Knock off the gimmicks.

The current ignorant laws on sex offenders is in my opinion totally unconstitutional. It places a life long punishment on these people WITHOUT actually legally doing so. Our system is simple, you go to jail and serve your time, when your time is up you return to society ( parole is a little differnt, but it still has a time limit) These people never finish their time.

They are prevented from even LIVING in society. No city and no State has the right to bar them from living and working where they want. It violates the 4th and 8th Amendments.

IF these people are a threat to society pass a law to imprison them for an appropriate length of time, life without parole for example. Punishing them by denying them the right to live anywhere is unconstitutional. THAT is CRUEL and UNUSUAL punishment. Forcing them to be publically identified everywhere they go for the rest of their lives is also CRUEL and UNUSUAL. Further it punishes any family they have also, which is also against the Constitution. If they own land it prevents them from living on it if inside a city. A clear violation of the 4th Amendment.

Once again if they are a danger pass a damn law to keep them in jail or a hospital.

 

[Gunny]

Is there anyone left that still thinks the three strike laws were a good idea?

Is minimum mandatory sentencing of any kind really a good idea?

Why bother having judges at all if we're not going to allow them to judge?

Any thoughts?

Of course there should be mandatory minimums. Judges need parameters too. There have been to many idiotic rulings where there are none to not have them.

People should be held accountable for their crimes. IMO, the reason we have as much lawlessness as we do is because crime DOES pay.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course there should be mandatory minimums. Judges need parameters too. There have been to many idiotic rulings where there are none to not have them.

People should be held accountable for their crimes. IMO, the reason we have as much lawlessness as we do is because crime DOES pay.

Three strikes and your out is NOT right. It lumps anything and everything into the pot. It ties judges hands and it ties juries hands as well. No problem with minimum required sentences when someone is convicted of a crime, I am opposed to saying " ohh he gets life cause he did something before" I am also opposed to no tolerance laws they are ignorant and only exist because people are to damn lazy.

 

[Gunny]

Three strikes and your out is NOT right. It lumps anything and everything into the pot. It ties judges hands and it ties juries hands as well. No problem with minimum required sentences when someone is convicted of a crime, I am opposed to saying " ohh he gets life cause he did something before" I am also opposed to no tolerance laws they are ignorant and only exist because people are to damn lazy.

I didn't address the three strikes laws, only mandatory minimums.

I would think three strikes for the same or similar crimes would be more than fair. How many chances should one get to prove they are untrainable?

Not sure I feel the same about unrelated crimes though. That would be dependent on what those crimes were, IMO.

If judges could be trusted to do what they are supposed to do, such laws wouldn't exist.

 

[Ravi]

Of course there should be mandatory minimums. Judges need parameters too. There have been to many idiotic rulings where there are none to not have them.

And there have been too many harsh sentences for first offenses that result in turning offenders into career criminals.

 

[Bern80]

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.

 

[Paulie]

Three strikes and your out is NOT right. It lumps anything and everything into the pot. It ties judges hands and it ties juries hands as well. No problem with minimum required sentences when someone is convicted of a crime, I am opposed to saying " ohh he gets life cause he did something before" I am also opposed to no tolerance laws they are ignorant and only exist because people are to damn lazy.

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is there anyone left that still thinks the three strike laws were a good idea?

I'd rather it be one strike, depending on the definition of 'strike'.

Is minimum mandatory sentencing of any kind really a good idea?

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

Why bother having judges at all if we're not going to allow them to judge?

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.

 

[mattskramer]

I'd rather it be one strike, depending on the definition of 'strike'.

I just hope that you would not be the judge. Imagine the mistakes that you might make.

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

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I just hope that you would not be the judge. Imagine the mistakes that you might make.

Thus, the appeals process.

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

What part of "depending on the definition of 'strike'" dont you understand?

 

[Dr Grump]

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

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.

 

[Gunny]

How extreme you want to go?

http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=3397

http://www.news4jax.com/news/11299394/detail.html

 

[Larkinn]

Of course there should be mandatory minimums.
Judges need parameters too. There have been to many idiotic rulings where there are none to not have them.

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 should be held accountable for their crimes. IMO, the reason we have as much lawlessness as we do is because crime DOES pay.

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.

 

[Larkinn]

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

Its called the appeal process.

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.

Concerning mandatory minimums? Actually I'd rather now.

 

[Larkinn]

How extreme you want to go?

http://blogs.cjonline.com/index.php?entry=3397

http://www.news4jax.com/news/11299394/detail.html

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.