Three Strikes Law - for or against? - Historum

jduster · October 10th, 2010, 03:36 PM

For those who do not know. If a person is guilty of three criminal offenses on separate occasions, they are sentenced to life in jail because of a Three Strikes Law. A smaller crime stealing a pack of gum from the supermarket does not count as a strike, but stealing a car, for example, would.

I generally support the idea.

1. A person only gets a strike when they are caught. Sometimes criminals aren't caught and a person with three strikes could have caused more than three crimes.

2. After 2 strikes, there is a strong deterrent to not do the crime again.

3. If a criminal commits a crime a third time, it clearly shows that they aren't improving, and we should not risk them doing it again.

**Robert165** · October 10th, 2010, 03:53 PM

I'd rather wait to see opinions and comments from others as that I am a bit undecided on this issue

**tjadams** · October 10th, 2010, 04:04 PM

I'm not familiar with a universal three strike law, only in baseball.
Committing a crime is much more than just committing the offense.
Was there a deadly weapon involved?
Was there a premeditated intent?
Was the offense committed as a juvenile?
There are many rabbit trails that law takes & they aren't all measured by a three strike measuring stick. A fair trial and court room is the only place a decision can be ruled upon.

**Sharks and love** · October 10th, 2010, 04:45 PM

I really don't think stealing 3 shampoo bottles deserves an opportunity to join the ranks of:

http://articles.sfgate.com/1998-12-3...le-convictions

Are you really in favor of sending someone to jail for 25 years to life for stealing shampoo bottles? I don't think you are.

**Edratman** · October 10th, 2010, 04:48 PM

The story behind the passage of California's Three strike laws is surprising. The major force urging its passage was the prison guard union!. The idea resonated with the public, but the sole beneficiary of the Three strikes law is the---ready for it----the prison guard union. Membership in the union has increased from 2600 prison guards to 45,000, increased by a factor of almost 20.

The average pay for guards in 1980 was $15K, now it is almost $100K. Califonia had the nations most admired prison system in 1980, with the lowest recidivism rate in the country. Now the prison system may be the absolute worst.

Yeah, three strikes works.

Quote:

California wasn't the only state to toughen laws in the throes of the 1980s crack wars. But Californians took it to a new level.

Voters increased parole sanctions and gave prison time to nonviolent drug offenders. They eliminated indeterminate sentencing, removing any leeway to let inmates out early for good behavior. Then came the "Three Strikes You're Out" law in 1994. Offenders who had committed even a minor third felony — like shoplifting — got life sentences.

Voters at the time were inundated with television ads, pamphlets and press conferences from Gov. Pete Wilson. "Three strikes is the most important victory yet in the fight to take back our streets," Wilson told crowds.
But behind these efforts to get voters to approve these laws was one major player: the correctional officers union.

In three decades, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has become one of the most powerful political forces in California. The union has contributed millions of dollars to support "three strikes" and other laws that lengthen sentences and increase parole sanctions. It donated $1 million to Wilson after he backed the three strikes law.

And the result for the union has been dramatic. Since the laws went into effect and the inmate population boomed, the union grew from 2,600 officers to 45,000 officers. Salaries jumped: In 1980, the average officer earned $15,000 a year; today, one in every 10 officers makes more than $100,000 a year.

Lance Corcoran, spokesman for the union, says it does what is best for its members.

"We have advocated successfully for our members," he said.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111843426

**Lawnmowerman** · October 10th, 2010, 04:50 PM

Over here we have a similar 3 strikes rule but rather than life imprisonment the 3rd strike is an automatic maximum sentance for that offence.

eg, some one steals shampoo, 1st offence fine, 2nd suspended sentace, 3rd 1 years jail (maximum for theft)

**diddyriddick** · October 10th, 2010, 05:05 PM

My understanding of 3 strikes law is that it only applies to felonies. Stealing a bottle of shampoo will not qualify.

**tjadams** · October 10th, 2010, 05:20 PM

That's what I alluded too as well Diddy.
A violent crime or habitual drug user or seller or the drunk who was driving without a license calls for different legal-goggles.

**Sharks and love** · October 10th, 2010, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diddyriddick

My understanding of 3 strikes law is that it only applies to felonies. Stealing a bottle of shampoo will not qualify.

I think burglary is a felony...

And this other guy received a 50 year minimum for stealing video tapes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in527248.shtml

**tjadams** · October 10th, 2010, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharks and love

I think burglary is a felony...

I"m no lawyer, but I think much has to do with the dollar amount of the item and what judge. Law is a slippery worm to bait on a wet hook.