Send em to the West Bank to live. Tell Israel that they have to accept them or we will cut off all funding. I know..I am being silly...about a non silly thing, but what the heck.... DaDakota
I think the policy of increasing punishments for repeat offenders is a good idea. Whether the method it is implemented is good or not...I don't know. What if instead of three strikes, make felonies multipliers or to normal sentences? Let's Say Sentence/fine = (1st time offender sentence/fine)* (1 + #felony) So a parking ticket worth $60 dollars would cost a two time felon $180. Jeff, How's being locked up for 25 years not a deterant to commit a fourth crime within those 25 years?
There are a couple of major theories on why you have punishments, including: 1) To deter people with the threat of punishment 2) To have criminals put somewhere where they are physically inable to commit most crimes -- this is the one you appeal to here. 3) Punishment for its own sake. 4) To give the State the opportunity to re-Nedify criminals. On #2, my criminology prof suggested we could take everyone from age 14 or so to 24 or so and put them in prison/army/work-camp and reduce crime significantly. There is a crime curve in one's life in which you commit most of your crimes as a teenager or young adult and that you gradually become more law-abiding as you age. Why wait for anyone to commit crimes if the only thing you are worried about it preventing their occurence? Lock 'em up now and they won't be able to do anything at all. I'm all for #3 myself. We're not dealing with children; people can make thier own choices and handle the consequences thereof. However, in punishing for punishment's sake, the punishment must fit the crime.
JV, Good points. I do not fall under any one theory, but would like to believe all of them could be carried out to some degree. I was more refering to a comment made about three strike not detering crime when I think it does an excellent job of detering future crimes. I didn't mean to imply excessively punishing someone to prevent future crimes is a good thing, just that it does. Punishments fitting crime. This is hard to quantify. There are times when the punishment is an acceptable trade off for the benefits of the crime. Just watch an NBA game to see examples of when commiting a foul is an acceptable tradeoff for the punishment. It sucks for the victim.
Because the possibility of being wrongly convicted of any crime is too high to forfeit people's lives. The probability of being wrongly convicted of three crimes is exponentially lower. The probability of being wrongly convicted of three felonies is lower still. Why can't people stop at two felonies, then the three strikes law would not apply to them. If someone has already commited three felonies, why would anyone think that they will not commit another.
It most certainly is a deterrant. There's not real argument there. The argument is whether or not the punishment of 25 years for, say, shoplifting some videos after two previous shoplifting arrests, is an adequate response to the crime. I read that one guy got 25 years after he stole a Snickers bar because he had one conviction for possession of less than 1 ounce of mar1juana and a DUI. The problem is reasonableness. How reasonable is it for us to lock someone up without giving the judge the latitude to make some changes if there is a reason to do so? Why even have a judge or jury in the first place if you won't let them do their job? I honestly have no problem with punishing criminals or for harsher sentences for repeat offenders. I just don't think there is a one-size-fits-all sentence. That's why we have judges and juries - to make those decisions.
Once again, this is not necessarily the case. The fellow who got 25 to life for stealing $153 worth of video tapes did not commit a third felony as his shoplifting was a misdemeanor. The California law allows misdemeanors to be treated as felonies for the third strike. So, if a person has committed two felonies, they could well find themselves going to jail at taxpayer expense for 25 years for extremely minor crimes such as graffiti or minor shoplifting or public intoxication or drinking alcohol in a convenience store parking lot or getting mad at a neighbor and saying he was going to kick his tail or any number of other things. Personally, I don't think the punishment for public intoxication should be the same as the punishment for second degree murder even if the person who got drunk in public has two previous felonies.
Well then stop at one felony, that isn't the point. The point is it is not too difficult to avoid committing felonies. It isn't like these laws are set up to ensnare innocent people. It's like the people who b!tch about drug sentancing. Don't smoke the grass or you could end up takin' it in the . . .
Jeff, I didn't mean to suggest 25 years were a suitable sentence for shoplifting gum. I should have pulled out this qoute. I didn't understand how the current laws weren't a deterrant and asked a question on it. Sometimes a question is only a question. Where you implying that the lawmakers weren't thinking putting a person away for 25 years was a deterant? I'm probably very close to your position on this, but a little harsher since I think certain crimes are more serious than you do. Another question, is it really that hard not to get arrested three times? The worst I ever been caught for is being parked illegally in a faculty spot during spring break. What's the yellow circle above my head? I take a drug conviction and dui seriously. I don't buy the its only mar1juana defense. Its still a crime. Its only one ounce. So what? If the jury and judge convicted him, isn't that their job? The one size fits all punishment....I don't like one punishment for all crimes. 25 years for a sneaker is excessive. I do believe any sentence for a crime should be augmented by any time a person should have seved but was let off early for good behavior. Final question, how stupid does a person with two felony convictions have to be to steal a sneaker. Not going anywhere? BTW, caught is a very important word in this post.
