Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those who are victims of criminals tend to take the view to lock them up and throw away the keys. I understand this POV. From someone who worked in the world of "criminal offenders" until retiring I know there are very few who ever become rehabilitated. Granted. Our system of locking them up does not promote rehabilitation as the masses are just not willing to pay for this considering there are no guarantees. Cons freely discuss their lot in life when they are locked up and the stuff you hear coming from them will blow your socks off. EX: "The judge believed me when I said when I am released you'll never see me again." His evil grin was easy to understand and you knew he knew he'd be back. People complain about the cost of incarcerating our prisoners. As a taxpayer I am willing to pay those taxes to keep the repeat offenders off the street and I have let my state lawmakers know this.
I heard this line come up in other postings, so I'm going to ask a question to posters who don't mind paying more and more tax dollars to the prison system. Are you just as willing to support food stamps, and other forms of welfare? An argument could be made for such programs being an endless money pit, but an argument could also be made that they reduce crime. After all, if I'm starving, I'm going to be much more likely to steal or get into drugs.
I don't disagree in principle, but rather practicality. Such laws just aren't practical, at least in most cases. They lead to a bloated justice system with overcrowded prisons. Those prisoners must be housed, fed, and provided medical care. States must balance their budget and devoting more tax money to prisons and law enforcement as opposed to other needed areas just seems counterproductive. The other issue is the application. What crimes qualify as strikes. Some would argue every crime. Well then you end up giving life in prison to a guy that steals a slice a pizza.
I suggest as a society we get back to rehabilitation mindset as opposed to the "lock them up and throw away the key” mentality. Many offenders reoffend due to essentially being punished once out of prison. Can't get a decent job due to criminal record. Thrust back into a world with no marketable skills. We used to teach prisoners trades while serving their time and provided services to help them become better. Unfortunately, many conversative minded folks found this to be “to soft on crime.” My former barber learned how to cut hair while serving a 5-year prison stint for drug dealing. Learning the skill provided him a new purpose and allowed him to make money in an alternate manner once released. No surprise he hasn’t been back, and he was released nearly 20 years ago.
As to the fist paragraph, isn't that was three times and you are out is designed to reduce? IF the three strike law works, then prison populations would be reduced once the word got around that you will be in the coup for the rest of your life.
I am admittedly a hawk on this issue. Put people in jail. Three hots and a cot. That's it. Criminals should know that prison is a horrible place and if you end up there for any amount of time you will likely die in there. Disease, filth, other prisoners, minimal health care and whatever else would cause a person to die off would be the norm and not the exception.
The problem i have with that, however, is that our courts are biased, our police forces are not well trained, and many people end up in jail who are otherwise innocent. It's a frightening thought that a person who did not commit a crime would end up in jail...but maybe by the third time the behavior of the person is more than likely of a law breaking nature. "Third strike" rule. So you get a chance in the first two arrests and convictions to sort yourself out, or vacate an incorrect judgment.
I am not a big fan of rehabilitation, but sure, if we give the offender two chances at rehabilitation, that seems fair. Third time? Nope. You are done. Say goodbye to daylight. Maybe that will get through to some of these knuckleheads. If not, at least they are separated from society.
Well don't go into people's garages looking for something to steal and it won't be a problem.
I don't care if you're walking down the street, and see a house with an open garage containing an open briefcase filled with $100 dollar bills.
If it's not your property then you still have no right to touch it.
If you do, plan on going to jail.
And if it's your third strike, so be it.
Because you and you alone made the choice to offend a third time.
And it's not like this isn't explained to you when you are released after your second felony, by your supervised release officer or jail staff/warden.
"You have two out of three strikes. If you offend again, you understand what will happen, correct?"
Will you agree to pay my share of taxes to incarcerate all thieves who have committed a third offense giving them a life sentence?
Are you able to understand that the major reason for eliminating the three strikes law for non-violent felons is because taxpayers suffer from having to pay for the lifetime incarceration of someone who could be dealt with in a manner that is cheaper than paying perhaps $50,000 a year to incarcerate someone in prison?
In all likelihood, I pay enough in taxes for the two of us now.
If it was a felony, then I'm happy to keep paying so a three time carjacker doesn't bother society anymore.
Where are the victims in this equation? Anywhere?
I'd rather pay to keep my family and I safe. Two chances should be enough for anyone.
But for some, even ten chances won't be enough.
That's why we cap it at two. Third strike, you're out. No balls, no fouls, no nothing.
You see there you go. You are trying to insinuate all three time felons are "car jackers" which is something quite serious. Most have committed some far less serious crime. Car jacking is a violent crime. Many felonies are not.
I don't see personal drug use, retail theft, or check forgery as offenses that ought to result in a life sentence whether they are repeated or not.
Some of the people committing them are truly hopeless. They will not be rehabilitated. That is a reality and one that I understand.
The question becomes how do we deal with these people in a manner that is cost effective? I don't see it as cost effective to incarcerate a thirty year old repeat shoplifter for 45 years at the rate of $50,000 per year or a total of $2.5 million as cost effective.
On the other hand drug treatment, alcohol treatment, or treatment for mental illness coupled with the threat of county jail for short periods if they don't follow through is more likely to be cost effective in dealing with these problems.
Frankly, what I see in this society are too many people who don't want to take the time to come up with a rational approach to dealing with these offenders. Instead they want to spend my money to satisfy some personal notion of retribution that they have. Sorry, I don't go along with that.
You see there you go. You are trying to insinuate all three time felons are "car jackers" which is something quite serious. Most have committed some far less serious crime. Car jacking is a violent crime. Many felonies are not.
I don't see personal drug use, retail theft, or check forgery as offenses that ought to result in a life sentence whether they are repeated or not.
Some of the people committing them are truly hopeless. They will not be rehabilitated. That is a reality and one that I understand.
The question becomes how do we deal with these people in a manner that is cost effective? I don't see it as cost effective to incarcerate a thirty year old repeat shoplifter for 45 years at the rate of $50,000 per year or a total of $2.5 million as cost effective.
On the other hand drug treatment, alcohol treatment, or treatment for mental illness coupled with the threat of county jail for short periods if they don't follow through is more likely to be cost effective in dealing with these problems.
Frankly, what I see in this society are too many people who don't want to take the time to come up with a rational approach to dealing with these offenders. Instead they want to spend my money to satisfy some personal notion of retribution that they have. Sorry, I don't go along with that.
Yes, the issue is often that the three strikes people are committing crimes that would otherwise be misdemeanors but for it being the third crime. I did an internship with a state attorney and at the time, they’d just find reasons to pull people over in certain areas and then search the cars. They’d find stuff like marijuana, drug paraphernalia, etc… all super minor issues that could still be seen as problems in areas that haven’t legalized marijuana yet. That said, no one needs to be put in prison for having marijuana, drug paraphernalia, or stealing a $15 piece of costume jewelry from a store.
Blind fold them , and drop them off in a desolate area of this earth. South Pole maybe? One bottle of water and a spoon.
They'd have little idea where they are.... And very little chance of getting back.
Seriously one way flight and be done with em. This goes for white collar crime- to.
Scammers, ponzi , corporate malfeasance.
Three strikes take a flight.
Bottom line, they get to live...freely in a desolate area.
And in my town, a 64 year old guy just got 38 years for possession and trading over 100 images and videos of child pornography.
As he was not the original source of any of the material, he is a nonviolent offender.
But now he'll have to live to the age of 102 in order to get out of prison.
This was his first offense, he was out after his first strike.
Are you going to claim he should not be?
And while where at it, Bernie Madoff didn't do anything violent, and technically, Charles Manson didn't kill anyone.
Some things get you out of society for life after one strike, and it's not always violent.
Thus I reiterate, two chances should be enough for anyone.
Actually, that's three chances. A chance after your first strike, a chance after your second strike, that makes two. But also a chance before your first strike. That's three chances.
Because I don't even have one strike, and never intend to. I'm still on my first chance.
I've had that chance all my life and I've always took advantage of it. By never doing anything to get myself my first strike.
I don't have any trouble going about my life behaving myself in society. Do you?
If a genie grants you 3 wishes,can you think of all kinds of things to do with those 3 wishes to drastically alter your life for the better?
I'd love that opportunity.
Conversely, three chances to behave yourself is plenty.
Why is this the only context in which people argue that?
Would you give your children more than 3 chances before the punishment gets serious?
If not, then don't give someone else's grown kid that many chances to commit a crime against my kids.
Lest I have to get my first strike by taking care of it myself
? You do realize that there are situations were people end up with a “strike” merely because of their life circumstances, right? Like if you are homeless and have no place to stay, you can easily end up with three trespass charges. A friend of mine was a victim of a burglary by a guy who was a drug addicted homeless person.
I think they typically let him out without treatment and he reoffends almost immediately. Instead he needs better treatment to get off drugs and stop going into people’s homes because he has no place to stay. The latter is a serious issue because people with criminal records often have trouble finding a place to live.
In all likelihood, I pay enough in taxes for the two of us now.
If it was a felony, then I'm happy to keep paying so a three time carjacker doesn't bother society anymore.
Where are the victims in this equation? Anywhere?
I'd rather pay to keep my family and I safe. Two chances should be enough for anyone.
But for some, even ten chances won't be enough.
That's why we cap it at two. Third strike, you're out. No balls, no fouls, no nothing.
The system, as it is, will lock someone up for carjacking for a long time. You're going to do hard time the first go round. Get out and do it again and you're going to be locked up for longer still. A 3rd time? You aren't getting out til you're an old man.
? You do realize that there are situations were people end up with a “strike” merely because of their life circumstances, right? Like if you are homeless and have no place to stay, you can easily end up with three trespass charges. A friend of mine was a victim of a burglary by a guy who was a drug addicted homeless person.
I think they typically let him out without treatment and he reoffends almost immediately. Instead he needs better treatment to get off drugs and stop going into people’s homes because he has no place to stay. The latter is a serious issue because people with criminal records often have trouble finding a place to live.
We are speaking on long term prison sentences that are more felony then misdemeanors. At least that's how I'm translating it.
Letting Johnny get a DUI, kill little Sally. Do seven years for veh. Homicide. Gets out and does it again.
We aren't talking about Bubba repeatedly stealing a candy bar and being labeled a thief ...
My citizen concern is the realistic fact that so many plea deals are done where we DO not have a clear baseline . Way too many folks that ARE repeat offenders , dodge it by pleading to a lesser offense .
Actually had a case in my town. 17 years ago , guy was sentenced to rape of a minor.
Did his time.
Five years ago, he was charged with rape of a minor. He plea dealed down to soliciting a minor. The family of this minor was rebuffed by this so called justice system. I'd rather that guy stay out of our community.
It would really help if instead of this gross minimizing of a persons crime by , by-passing justice. We can put them in confinement and serve the actual time. Ten years, get out after 3. Makes no sense.
We are speaking on long term prison sentences that are more felony then misdemeanors. At least that's how I'm translating it.
Letting Johnny get a DUI, kill little Sally. Do seven years for veh. Homicide. Gets out and does it again.
We aren't talking about Bubba repeatedly stealing a candy bar and being labeled a thief ...
My citizen concern is the realistic fact that so many plea deals are done where we DO not have a clear baseline . Way too many folks that ARE repeat offenders , dodge it by pleading to a lesser offense .
Actually had a case in my town. 17 years ago , guy was sentenced to rape of a minor.
Did his time.
Five years ago, he was charged with rape of a minor. He plea dealed down to soliciting a minor. The family of this minor was rebuffed by this so called justice system. I'd rather that guy stay out of our community.
It would really help if instead of this gross minimizing of a persons crime by , by-passing justice. We can put them in confinement and serve the actual time. Ten years, get out after 3. Makes no sense.
That's the problem. People support the idea based on one idea in their mind then paint with a broad brush.
The prosecutor that offers a plea and a judge that accepts it and sentences according to its recommendation are both likely elected. And remember, if a plea seems overly generous, the case might not be as strong as you think it is in the first place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
