You posted before I did.

The Cali 3 strike law is a band aid at best. I place it with 'zero tolerance', which I have zero tolerance for.

Thought needs to be involved in anything this serious. The 3 strikes law in California could be fixed bay changing some of the process.

In all reality, I think it is important to look at each case and each individule and each crime. That is what the judicial system is supposed to do. The 3 strikes law actually removes that from fair punishment IMHO.

I know this thread will be picked apart and become very passionate.

Understand also that recently there was a group of 8 death row prisoners speaking about crime, the judicial system and punishment in a room together. What was interesting? All of them sat on death row after being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when they were released on DNA evidence.

I personally believe that our justice system has flaws that these types of laws just perpetuate problems and do not have the desired deterent effect.

In the case of rape, my wife preffers having the the person be drawn and fifthed.

We are not, however, a country that should revert back to the days of chopping off fingers (or anyhting else). We already have punishment that fit the crime that are decided by reasonable people, in theory.

The constition is a very simple document. Walk into a law library and you will see books that outweigh the weight of your house in that library. They all interpret that small document and show precidents of what has been decided on since. They deal with everything from criminal to civil matters that stem from what America set out to do and to be.

Nobody needs to be overpunished (or underpunished). Some of these new laws, though, don't allow a judge to look at any of these precidents and tells them that x=y regardless of anything else involved. To me that is the ultimate cop out.

Pepperdog, I appreciate disagreement especially when it's as well stated as your post is.

I think a lot of the rationale for the three strikes law is media hype and legislator frenzy. These guys want to appear "tough on crime" in order to get re-elected, so they come up with these "sound-good, feel-good" proposals in order to gain public approval. All of us are frustrated with crime but most of us don't know what to do about it. Unfortunately, the legislators don't always know either and we end up with stupid laws that are little more than what people want to hear.



Are judges too lenient? All judges or just some of them? What's too lenient?

If a guy spends five years in prison, he's undoubtedly lost his job. He has a felony conviction on his record which is going to make it hard for him to get another. It's also likely that he's going to get out without a place to live and there is a chance that family and friends won't be waiting with open arms to help him out. He will have no car and no credit. So what is the difference between five and ten years? Or twenty? How much punishment is enough?

A vast majority of these offenses are drug offenses. I would think that some intensive education, substance abuse counseling, and other positive measures would go a lot farther toward protecting the community than keeping someone locked up for an additional decade.

I think that judges, with some exceptions, do a great job at sentencing. You can't have the police doing job of judges or you wouldn't have separation of powers. Unchecked police power leads to tyranny - you've got to have a check and balance. Police are pre-conviction enforcement. Judges ensure that the defendant's rights are protected through the processes and that the sentence meted out is appropriate and fair. Now, before anyone scoffs at defendant rights, yes they do have them - the 8 guys Mallard is talking about who were exonerated by DNA evidence had right that were obviously violated somewhere along the process.

Drug offenses could be reduced much more significantly by effective border control than by locking people up for use and possession on this side of the border. All of the cocaine and most of the meth and marijuana are imported into this country through our southern border.

The notion that offenders move to another state in order to avoid their third strike is a myth. Any state they move to is going to lock them up for a new crime and any priors, regardless of where they occurred, are going to be considered at sentencing. Moving to a new state doesn't exactly give one a fresh start and it doesn't reset the counter.

The United States locks up more people, per capita, than any other country in the world including communist countries and dictatorships. For a country that values personal choice and freedom, that's quite a record.

Sometimes I want to give you a hug. I couldn't agree more with your response.

In an ideal world, a convict would get an education, learn a trade, get counseling, be remorseful, then, after serving his time, get out and become a useful citizen. I wish it were so, but if wishes were horses we would all have beautiful rose gardens.

The Dep of Justice - Bureau of statistics (2004 - the latest I could find) report stated that,"two-thirds of felony defendants had a prior arrest history, with 53% having at least five prior charges." If that 53% were to be locked away for life, our crime rate would be halved. That of course is a simplistic statement as many other variables are in play. I simply use it to make the point that the longer career criminals are in prison the less crime they will commit.

Where do you get this idea from?

Well, I know the crime rate dropped in places like California after adopting them....

Wait... No... They keep going up. Not much of a deterent there.

"A Californian burglar on the verge of a third strike has an even safer option for his next act—take his activities out of state. Just across the border in Arizona, there's no three-strikes law at all, and in neighboring Nevada, the law is rarely invoked. So rather than breaking and entering in Los Angeles, why not take a road trip to Las Vegas or Phoenix instead? It seems that many criminals do. Iyengar finds that a larger fraction of repeat offenders recidivate out of state after the three-strikes law's passage.)"

Reference: http://www.slate.com/id/2186901?nav=wp

"What it has done, in some areas of the state, is create a criminal-migration pattern.

DD,

You bring up some good points.  I agree that most of the offenses are drug related. I also agree that strictly drug-related cases should be left out, but only the drug ones, not the crimes commited because they were on drugs or needed to buy drugs.

I agree that the law was reactionary, I also agree that it is overused. Too many prosecuters put forward these cases where they should not. I believe they do so for political gain as you say. I disagree though that just because a law is being misused doesn't make it a bad law. 3 strikes should be used for 3 serious and/or violent crimes as intended.

I think that judges, with some exceptions, do a great job at sentencing. You can't have the police doing job of judges or you wouldn't have separation of powers. Unchecked police power leads to tyranny - you've got to have a check and balance. Police are pre-conviction enforcement. .....

I am hoping you missed the point . Your original statement was Let's put the burden for addressing criminal behavior on the judges and on the Department of Corrections. Criminal behavior, IE crime must first be addressed by police or other law enforcement before it can ever get to sentencing and a judge. That is why I state my disagreement. The burden of criminal behavior is on law enforcement and politicians. They must first enforce the law. If someone commits a crime and is not arrested they will more than likely commit another crime and continue until they do get caught. That is how criminals are formed. They commit crimes. They will not get into the department of corrections with out first being caught. Do you think immigration would be such a problem today if the existing were properly enforced since the 80's? I am using this as an example of where extreme lack of enforcement is a known problem. Crime prevention is most assuredly a function of law enforcement and politicians, not judges.

Is it not reasonable to give more of a punishment for repeat offenders? At what point is a repeat offender beyond rehabilitation? In a free country why do we have to place the burden of rehabilitation on society and not the criminal? Three chances is fair enough.

Again criminals in prison don't typically commit crimes on the public.

Just as a side note:  Dissidents and criminals in communist countries didn't alwasys make it to "jail".  I am sure your figures are skewed by the fact that millions of people Stalin murdered never made it to jail to begin with though I am sure they would have prefered being incarcerated to being summarily executed.  Also more freedom would imply more crime as you truley have more choices.  Fear of the government is a great deterent., just ask those Iraqi's who lived under Sadam.  In conclusion,  I don't believe your last comment is relevant.