| Author | Message | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Intermediate Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 1012 Registered: 5-2001 |
Would it not make basic common sense to have a few more places ready to take these people if your about to make it harder for them to avoid jail? Someone please explain the logic in NOT doing that. | ||
| j scott leonard (Jscott)
Member Username: Jscott Post Number: 335 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art: Agree, clarification/revision is necessary. See ya, Scott | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1165 Registered: 6-2001 |
JScott: Generally the law has worked well, but in about 1, 2% of the cases (a significant number of people, even though the % is small) you get something that doesn't work right. Some of that can be avoided if the accused pleads, and there is an agree to strike a prior, thus eliminating the strike. In those cases where the accused thinks he's innocent, when there is a trial, and a conviction, the strike remains and we get a result that most of us did not intend when the initative passed. Art | ||
| j scott leonard (Jscott)
Member Username: Jscott Post Number: 334 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art: It actually wasn't Polly's dad that started the campaign. Mark Klass has been an advocate of children's rights and founded the Polly Klass Foundation. His work helped in the implementation of Megan' Law. It was the father of Kimber Reynolds. His name is Mike Reynolds. Dan Lundgren, past attorney general and Bill Jones, former sec. of state, picked up the ball and really made it move. Kimber was murdered by a repeat offender who had been let out of prison just a few days before murdering Kimber. Mike Reynolds has been a rentless advocate of the law. Granted some judges have misused the law, but overall, the application has been good and the law is a definate deterrent. It is an overstatement that petty thiefs are the target of this law. It just hasn't worked that way and it is not intended to. Those who oppose the law probably have not had a violent criminal invade the persons security. It is seldom if ever misapplied. | ||
| Andrew (Mrrou)
Member Username: Mrrou Post Number: 505 Registered: 3-2002 |
Randall apparently you don't know how much a slice of pizza costs in some areas  | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 952 Registered: 5-2001 |
I suppose if was three violent felonies. Probably not if it's stealing a $250 ladder three times (or whatever min. amount makes it a felony) | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 205 Registered: 1-2003 |
So the only concern is that some crimes labeled as felonies shouldn't be? I thought theft had to reach a certain value before it was considered a felony, thus a slice of pizza doesn't quite hack it. I didn't realize misdemeanors would count, that I wouldn't agree with. While you provided a link that is against it, there are may more cases that would support it. Recently we had cop killed in Hawaii by a guy that was out after his 4th conviction. I've always been a firm supporter, but I haven't heard the negative sides of it. I know it costs to house prisoners, but it also costs to run people through the system over and over again. I've heard the arguement that it's cheaper to deal with people 3 times and never again, but I have yet to see proof either way. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2161 Registered: 2-2001 |
i'm against it. I think its awful that judges have their hands tied & arent allowed to use common sense & compassion. What if the pizza thief was living on the street & had no $. What if he was living on the street cus he has mental problems & the state threw him on the street ? What if stealing a pizza was the only way he could survive | ||
| philip (Fanatic1)
Junior Member Username: Fanatic1 Post Number: 93 Registered: 2-2003 |
I think Craig said it best. One has the quick thought of "oh this guy got 25 years for stealing a piece of pizza"....no he didn'the got 25 years because he continues to commit crimes......if you don't commit a crime, you don't go to jail...it's not that difficult of a concept. | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 3097 Registered: 9-2001 |
there will always be wierd cases but I like the law - it basically says you have shown that you have no respect for law and civilized society so see ya. one thing Cali got right | ||
| Craig Dewey (Craigfl)
Member Username: Craigfl Post Number: 559 Registered: 1-2001 |
I'll put a different perspective on this.... I'm 53 years old and if the three strikes law had been in force when I was born, I would never have been in jail, just like I never have been anyway. In fact, if I had been involved with "a 'marshall arts' throwing star or nanchuks out of the classroom "(sic), I would make sure that I NEVER did anything to put myself in jeopardy EVER again -- I learn from my mistakes. What we need to remember is that we can't look at the third offense individually. It is the combination of the three acts that sends the person to jail as a habitual offender. Stealing a piece of pizza as the third act only shows that the person cannot and will not control themselves. It's the fourth act that we don't know about, and are trying to prevent... | ||
| Mark (Markg)
Member Username: Markg Post Number: 418 Registered: 2-2001 |
and read this article about 2 witnesses killed by defendant because of 3 strike law... http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-leighton28mar28,1,4177087.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia | ||
| Mark (Markg)
Member Username: Markg Post Number: 416 Registered: 2-2001 |
Don't like it as applied; original concept was to keep violent offenders off the street, you commit 3 violent crimes (robbery, assualt, kidnap, rape etc.) you go away for life. As practiced though, and recent Supreme Court decision affirms (in yet ANOTHER brilliant 5-4 decission), ANY 3rd offence results in mandatory life term; thus California has a person serving a life term (at cost of about $40k per year)for stealing a slice on Pizza; another for stealing a golf club (on which the Supreme Court made it's ruling). These are mandatory life term, no parole ever, and so when prison crowding reaches mandatory prisoner early release levels, these folks don't get on the list. Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan and others who are NOT serving mandatory life terms DO get opportunity for 'early release'. There are an amazing amount of non-violent crimes that are calssified as Felonies; Say in California, you get caught with a 'marshall arts' throwing star or nanchuks out of the classroom = Felony #1; then get caught with a can of Mace you bought legally in Arizona for self defense = Felony #2; then you get into an argument with a neighbor, and in the heat of the moment you do $2000.01 vandalism damage to his property = felony # 3 and Mandatory life sentance, yet the first 2 convictions (in California these are considered 'strict liability' offenses i.e. there is no afirmative defense in court, mere possesion constitutes a crome, period) were innocent oversights with no criminal or violent intentions what so ever. If this trend to send EVERY 3rd offense to life terms continues, prison overcrowding will mandate that states early release none-LWOP (Life With Out Parole) prisoners, including murderers, burglars, robbers etc. to make room for pizza and golf club thieves. Which, of course, defeats the whole purpose of three strikes.... | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1140 Registered: 6-2001 |
Randall: In California we had a terrible kidnapping, murder: Polly Klaus about 10 years ago. The perpetrator, guy by the name of Richard Allen Davis was an ex-con, who had been let out of prison early, then committed this terrible crime. As a result of that Polly's Dad started a campaign to enact our version of the 3 strikes rule. I don't do a lot of criminal law in this state, but my understanding is that on a third felony (and apparently some misdeamors) there is a mandatory lengthy sentence, I think 25 years. This was a great idea, but the execution and governance used to enforce the idea sucks. What has occurred is that people who had had problems with the law were getting caught in relative minor crimes, and we're locking them up for life. I think the two cases which were recently decided by the supreme court last week involved theft of under $200.00 of video tapes. The defendants got 25 year sentences. The cost to keep someone in jail is now about 82k per year. Given the poor enforcement of our laws, I think this is a terrible waste of our resources. I think that we need to keep violent people off our streets, but the manner in which we are using the 3 strikes law in California has exactly the opposite effect. Because we have overcrowded prisons, we are letting first time violent offenders out early, so we can lock those who would threaten our citizens, since we don't have the money or inclination to lock up everyone who does break the law in this State. Klaus' father now agrees with what I have said, and infact in leading a group to change the law to make it was it was intended to be: a method to keep actual violent criminals off the street. Art | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 361 Registered: 11-2002 |
IMHO this law is a stupid idea. I have a better one. Why not make punishment restitution based. In other words the perpetrator must restore the victim to the condition they were in before the crime. Let's see how this would apply to a couple different scenarios. First let's say someone breaks into your house and steals a bunch of your stuff. Once caught and convicted, the court would release the perpetrator when and only when he repays to the victim the value of the stolen property. This could easily be accomplished by turning prisons into productive factories instead of criminal training camps. Next let's say someone murders someone else. Same rule applies. All they need to do is restore the victim to thier original condition to be released. Since they cannot bring back the dead, they can never be released. this could even work with crimes like rape. Since the victim would never be able to be completely restored, the perpetrator would never be able to get out. This works particularly well with victimless crimes like drug offenses since we really don't need to put non violent criminals in jail anyway, we just need to have them repay there debt to society by working it off. | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4136 Registered: 5-2001 |
I am for it but it depends on crimes comitted. I just recently had the case where a Jamaican citizen, living in the US for many years on a green card got deported. Here is for what: He works construction but does not believe in banks, so he staches his money cash in his bedroom drawer. His teenage son steels the money, which was for the mortgage payment and spends it. He takes the belt and whips his son. HRS comes and arrests him. Since he is poor he does not get a good defense in court and they put him in jail for whipping his son, who stole several hundred Dollars from him. Best of all he then is being deported. Crimes like these do not deserve a 3-stikes-your-out count. Substantial crimes need to be comitted before that rule should apply. Although a crime is a crime, there is different layers. | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 200 Registered: 1-2003 |
I want to hear some peoples view on this law. Since it varies from state to state, I'll give a quick sum of one of them. Essentially if a person committs a felony (or felonies) on three seperate occasions, after the third they recieve a life sentence. My questions are: Are you for it or against it? If you're against it, why? |