1. Post #1
    Shiftyze's Avatar
    April 2011
    2,871 Posts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law

    Three strikes laws are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which require the state courts to hand down a mandatory and extended period of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. These statutes became very popular in the 1990s. Twenty-four states have some form of habitual offender laws.

    The name comes from baseball, where a batter is permitted two strikes before striking out on the third.

    The Three Strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of felonies who have been previously convicted of a violent crime or serious felony, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a prison sentence. Violent and serious felonies are specifically listed in state laws. Violent offenses include murder, robbery of a residence in which a deadly or dangerous weapon is used, rape and other sex offenses; serious offenses include the same offenses defined as violent offenses, but also include other crimes such as burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit a robbery or murder.

    In 1974: Texas
    In 1993: Washington
    In 1994: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, North Dakota
    In 1995: Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin
    In 1996: Florida, Tennessee, Virginia
    In 2006: Arizona
    The law also accounts for possession and dealing of drugs and theft.

    I think the law is good for sex and violent crimes, except for the part about drugs. If a man is caught with an once of weed 3 times, he has to go to prison for years which is just ridiculous.

    Also, if you steal a number of times, you can go to prison for a long time too. Even if your third crime is stealing some bubblegum which is also fucking ridiculous. I read an article of a man who stole some bubblegum as his third theft crime and was sent to prison for 15 years.

    The whole idea is good but needs to be reformed.

  2. Post #2
    I agree with it to a certain extent. Things like violent crime, breaking into stuff, auto theft, all of that sort of thing needs to apply to the 3 strike rule. But things like shoplifting and petty crime either need to not be included, or need to have their own 3 strike rule that does not include life in prison, but a harsh sentence.

  3. Post #3
    Gold Member
    s0beit's Avatar
    August 2010
    2,574 Posts
    I don't agree with this at all, a crime is a crime and should be prosecuted on an individual basis. Society has deemed it to be "just" to confine somebody to prison for a set amount of time roughly equal to the harm inflicted upon society, a three strikes law doesn't prosecute a specific crime only the frequency of crimes committed.

    It isn't fair in a legal sense, the amount of times you commit a crime is not relevant to the punishment, although, even outside the three strikes law judges can and will be harsher on you for committing multiple offenses.

  4. Post #4
    I don't agree with this at all, a crime is a crime and should be prosecuted on an individual basis. Society has deemed it to be "just" to confine somebody to prison for a set amount of time roughly equal to the harm inflicted upon society, a three strikes law doesn't prosecute a specific crime only the frequency of crimes committed.

    It isn't fair in a legal sense, the amount of times you commit a crime is not relevant to the punishment, although, even outside the three strikes law judges can and will be harsher on you for committing multiple offenses.
    So if somebody keeps committing armed robberies, they should be judged individually? If the person commits more than 2 of the same crime, they aren't getting the hint.

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member
    s0beit's Avatar
    August 2010
    2,574 Posts
    So if somebody keeps committing armed robberies, they should be judged individually? If the person commits more than 2 of the same crime, they aren't getting the hint.
    It doesn't matter if people aren't "getting the hint", legal justice is about just that - justice. It's about holding the person responsible for the harm they've inflicted upon the community. The law doesn't exist to coerce people into not committing crimes in the future, it exists to punish people for crimes actually committed.

    Putting some one in prison for life on the assumption they'll never turn their life around is profoundly unjust.

  6. Post #6
    It doesn't matter if people aren't "getting the hint", legal justice is about just that - justice. It's about holding the person responsible for the harm they've inflicted upon the community. The law doesn't exist to coerce people into not committing crimes in the future, it exists to punish people for crimes actually committed.

    Putting some one in prison for life on the assumption they'll never turn their life around is profoundly unjust.
    Look at the American penal system. It's a revolving door. Watch 30 Days by Morgan Spurlock, the episode where he spends a month in jail. You'll think differently.

  7. Post #7
    Gold Member
    s0beit's Avatar
    August 2010
    2,574 Posts
    Look at the American penal system. It's a revolving door. Watch 30 Days by Morgan Spurlock, the episode where he spends a month in jail. You'll think differently.
    I don't really care for Morgan Spurlock and I don't really care if it's a revolving door. You don't prosecute people for crimes they *might* commit, it flies in the face of our entire concept of justice.

  8. Post #8
    Icedshot's Avatar
    April 2010
    2,313 Posts
    It doesn't matter if people aren't "getting the hint", legal justice is about just that - justice. It's about holding the person responsible for the harm they've inflicted upon the community. The law doesn't exist to coerce people into not committing crimes in the future, it exists to punish people for crimes actually committed.

    Putting some one in prison for life on the assumption they'll never turn their life around is profoundly unjust.
    The point (or what the point should be) of prison is to rehabilitate people so that they will not commit crimes again. If they do commit crimes repeatedly, then clearly it isnt working and they need to go in for a longer stint

    Though judging by americas rate of people reoffending after being let out of prison, they are just trying to punish people not help them

  9. Post #9
    I don't really care for Morgan Spurlock and I don't really care if it's a revolving door. You don't prosecute people for crimes they *might* commit, it flies in the face of our entire concept of justice.
    You're putting them in jail for committing the same crime over and over, it's not anticipatory at all.

  10. Post #10
    Gold Member
    s0beit's Avatar
    August 2010
    2,574 Posts
    You're putting them in jail for committing the same crime over and over, it's not anticipatory at all.
    Yes it is, the purpose of the law is to stop people from committing those same crimes again in the future. There is no burden of proof that they might commit those crimes again, there is no proving them guilty for crimes they might commit in the future. It's the antithesis of justice.

    It's pre-crime.

  11. Post #11
    Yes it is, the purpose of the law is to stop people from committing those same crimes again in the future. There is no burden of proof that they might commit those crimes again, there is no proving them guilty for crimes they might commit in the future. It's the antithesis of justice.

    It's pre-crime.
    "I sentence you to 40 years for 3 armed robbery convictions in the last 5 years" is anticipatory?

  12. Post #12
    Gold Member
    s0beit's Avatar
    August 2010
    2,574 Posts
    "I sentence you to 40 years for 3 armed robbery convictions in the last 5 years" is anticipatory?
    Yes, the assumption is that because they're "habitual" offenders that they'll commit the crime again, therefore they must be sentenced to a longer period of time to rid society of a cancerous individual.

    Ignoring that some people, may in fact not commit that crime again. There's no way to know, people can't predict the future.

  13. Post #13
    Gold Member

    November 2007
    8,432 Posts
    The point (or what the point should be) of prison is to rehabilitate people so that they will not commit crimes again. If they do commit crimes repeatedly, then clearly it isnt working and they need to go in for a longer stint

    Though judging by americas rate of people reoffending after being let out of prison, they are just trying to punish people not help them
    That sounds great in practice, but the American prison system isn't very good at rehabilitation.

  14. Post #14
    Yes, the assumption is that because they're "habitual" offenders that they'll commit the crime again, therefore they must be sentenced to a longer period of time to rid society of a cancerous individual.

    Ignoring that some people, may in fact not commit that crime again. There's no way to know, people can't predict the future.
    Alright, so let's just cut them loose. Maybe they'll actually kill somebody next time, then they'll be put away for good.

    Edited:

    That sounds great in practice, but the American prison system isn't very good at rehabilitation.
    No, it's not at all.

  15. Post #15
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    The point (or what the point should be) of prison is to rehabilitate people so that they will not commit crimes again. If they do commit crimes repeatedly, then clearly it isnt working and they need to go in for a longer stint

    Though judging by americas rate of people reoffending after being let out of prison, they are just trying to punish people not help them
    The reason that the 3-strike law is there and is even needed is because US prisoners don't get any rehabilitation in prison, they simply get put away for a couple of years, have nothing left when they get out and simply have no other alternative than to start all over again with what they got charged with in the first place. With proper rehabilitation there would be no need for the 3-strikes law as people wouldn't retort to the only thing they knew or could before they went to prison.

  16. Post #16
    Gold Member
    s0beit's Avatar
    August 2010
    2,574 Posts
    Alright, so let's just cut them loose. Maybe they'll actually kill somebody next time, then they'll be put away for good.
    Weren't you the guy who not 3 posts ago was arguing that the law was "not anticipatory at all"?

    You pretty much just contradicted yourself.

    The reason that the 3-strike law is there and is even needed is because US prisoners don't get any rehabilitation in prison, they simply get put away for a couple of years, have nothing left when they get out and simply have no other alternative than to start all over again with what they got charged with in the first place. With proper rehabilitation there would be no need for the 3-strikes law as people wouldn't retort to the only thing they knew or could before they went to prison.
    It should be noted I'm not arguing against rehabilitation, but, rehabilitation or not this law should never exist.

  17. Post #17
    The reason that the 3-strike law is there and is even needed is because US prisoners don't get any rehabilitation in prison, they simply get put away for a couple of years, have nothing left when they get out and simply have no other alternative than to start all over again with what they got charged with in the first place. With proper rehabilitation there would be no need for the 3-strikes law as people wouldn't retort to the only thing they knew or could before they went to prison.
    Exactly. Nobody wants to hire a felon, for obvious reasons. Everyone knows how the prison system doesn't rehab anybody. So, they get out and are forced to steal, rape and pillage to make ends meet.

    Edited:

    Weren't you the guy who not 3 posts ago was arguing that the law was "not anticipatory at all"?

    You pretty much just contradicted yourself.



    It should be noted I'm not arguing against rehabilitation, but, rehabilitation or not this law should never exist.
    I was being sarcastic with what I said there.

  18. Post #18
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    14,832 Posts
    I agree with this only if it's hate crimes that it applies to.

  19. Post #19
    I agree with this only if it's hate crimes that it applies to.
    Now I'm waiting for Lankist to come in here and argue that hate crimes are bullshit because we have free speech...lol

  20. Post #20
    I'M A SHAAARK!
    Lambeth's Avatar
    October 2009
    14,832 Posts
    lankist is the last one I would think to argue that. Ridge maybe, but not lankist

  21. Post #21
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,605 Posts
    Exactly. Nobody wants to hire a felon, for obvious reasons. Everyone knows how the prison system doesn't rehab anybody. So, they get out and are forced to steal, rape and pillage to make ends meet.
    So we should reform the prison system, not put them in prison longer.

  22. Post #22
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    Now I'm waiting for Lankist to come in here and argue that hate crimes are bullshit because we have free speech...lol
    I hope not, that never ends well.

    Edited:

    So we should reform the prison system, not put them in prison longer.
    Agreed, you should.

  23. Post #23
    lankist is the last one I would think to argue that. Ridge maybe, but not lankist
    Ridge never argues like that. Lankist always does.

  24. Post #24
    Gold Member

    November 2007
    8,432 Posts
    Well the whole three-strikes thing is a vicious cycle. No one hires felons because the prison system fails to properly rehabilitate offenders. The stigma surrounding felons is also a bi-product of this failing. What happens then is convicted felons have to work absolutely shit jobs over a mistake they may have made as a young adult, and are essentially thrown back into the cycle of crime. They can't make decent money, have to resort to other forms of income, get involved with bad people, and before you know it they are repeat offenders. They get thrown into a violent prison system again where their anger and discontent can only grow, and the moment they get out it's back to the "streets". Rinse and repeat.

    The three-strikes law is a direct result of this failing of the prison system. Before any reform is done in that regard there is no chance for any change with these kinds of laws. I'm not in direct support of the three-strikes law, but I can understand why it's in place. Prison reform needs to happen first.

  25. Post #25
    Gold Member
    Contag's Avatar
    July 2010
    11,828 Posts
    I don't agree with this at all, a crime is a crime and should be prosecuted on an individual basis. Society has deemed it to be "just" to confine somebody to prison for a set amount of time roughly equal to the harm inflicted upon society, a three strikes law doesn't prosecute a specific crime only the frequency of crimes committed.

    It isn't fair in a legal sense, the amount of times you commit a crime is not relevant to the punishment, although, even outside the three strikes law judges can and will be harsher on you for committing multiple offenses.
    I agree with this post in its entirety. I feel the criminal justice system would be far better served by control orders which take off an amount of jail time, while stipulating that crime within some period after release would result in the offender being subject to the full penalty.

    Furthermore, the three strikes law removes all agency on the judge's behalf in sentencing (the felonious theft of bubblegum example was mentioned).

    In addition, significant prison reform needs to occur. The Australian system provides in-house work opportunities, which allows prisoners to purchase cigarettes, video games and various other amenities which provide them some semblance of normalcy.

    Unfortunately the situation is such in America that post-release jobs are nigh impossible to find, and there needs to be some kind of government/private industry cooperation to alleviate this.

  26. Post #26
    Volkswagen and Cigar Aficionado
    ThatHippyMan's Avatar
    October 2006
    2,849 Posts
    I have yet to figure out why Americans thought a law based on baseball would be a good idea. It's basically saying "Well, we won't put money into rehabilitation, so you're a lost cause. Enjoy your time in jail on the tax payers' backs."

  27. Post #27
    guys i have unique darkrp, k?
    chuck14's Avatar
    May 2008
    1,358 Posts
    What are you guys talking about, being shoved into a cell with free healthcare, food, and other things most people don't have is a great way to stop people from committing crimes.

    The only scary part about jail is rape.

  28. Post #28
    Atlascore's Avatar
    June 2011
    8,367 Posts
    The only scary part about jail is rape.
    And being stabbed to death.

  29. Post #29
    Gold Member
    jeimizu's Avatar
    August 2007
    6,421 Posts
    "I sentence you to 40 years for 3 armed robbery convictions in the last 5 years" is anticipatory?
    If they've been convicted twice before they've already been punished for those crimes.

    Sentencing someone to more time because they were previously convicted is bordering on double jeopardy.

  30. Post #30
    Gold Member

    November 2007
    8,432 Posts
    What are you guys talking about, being shoved into a cell with free healthcare, food, and other things most people don't have is a great way to stop people from committing crimes.

    The only scary part about jail is rape.
    And all the violence. Being put in prison in the United States is absolutely horrifying. As a scrawny 5'8'' 110 lbs kid, I'd be completely fucked over if I went to jail. I'd denounce my US citizenship and hope to be extradited to Brazil (my home country) or something. Seriously, going to prison scares the shit out of me. I'm also obviously not a criminal, so I have little to worry but still a scary thought.

  31. Post #31
    And all the violence. Being put in prison in the United States is absolutely horrifying. As a scrawny 5'8'' 110 lbs kid, I'd be completely fucked over if I went to jail. I'd denounce my US citizenship and hope to be extradited to Brazil (my home country) or something. Seriously, going to prison scares the shit out of me. I'm also obviously not a criminal, so I have little to worry but still a scary thought.
    I am 6 foot 3 and about 160. I can fight very well (8 years of Ninjutsu) so I can hold my own. I was terrified when I was arrested and in a lockup for 12 hours a few years ago for some bullshit. I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, had nothing to do with the problem, but fuck that was scary.

  32. Post #32
    Mandating a worse punishment is dumb. There's no reason they can't be given an extended punishment anyway and all it does is remove flexibility to a given situation.

  33. Post #33
    Mandating a worse punishment is dumb. There's no reason they can't be given an extended punishment anyway and all it does is remove flexibility to a given situation.
    No doubt that jail terms need to be extended for a lot of crimes, especially violent crimes.

  34. Post #34
    But making a one-size fits all rule like that is not the way to go about it.

  35. Post #35
    But making a one-size fits all rule like that is not the way to go about it.
    Yeah, that is why they have a range of years you can possibly serve. Judges can also suspend time, and you can also get time served. I am saying, people convicted of armed robbery need to have 10+ years. Not 2 with good behavior.

  36. Post #36
    Gold Member
    fenwick's Avatar
    August 2005
    3,914 Posts
    So if somebody keeps committing armed robberies, they should be judged individually? If the person commits more than 2 of the same crime, they aren't getting the hint.
    Then the judge should give them harsher sentencing on repeat offenses. Which they do.

    But mandatory minimum sentencing is never a good thing.

  37. Post #37
    abcpea3's Avatar
    October 2008
    250 Posts
    if the law misses 5 times do you get to walk to first base?

  38. Post #38
    Then the judge should give them harsher sentencing on repeat offenses. Which they do.

    But mandatory minimum sentencing is never a good thing.
    Why not? Mandatory minimum stops suspending of too much time.

  39. Post #39
    Gold Member
    fenwick's Avatar
    August 2005
    3,914 Posts
    Why not? Mandatory minimum stops suspending of too much time.
    Because you can't make sweeping generalizations about crimes. Even violent ones.

    You can't say that a kid who gets in three minor squabbles in high-school should go to prison because he committed assault three times. Or a seventeen year old guy should go to prison for a very long time because he and his 16-year-old girlfriend had sex.

  40. Post #40
    Because you can't make sweeping generalizations about crimes. Even violent ones.

    You can't say that a kid who gets in three fights in high-school should go to prison just because the law says so. Or a seventeen year old guy should go to prison for a very long time because he and his girlfriend had sex.
    K, so a guy robs a store at gunpoint, and he shoots the teller.

    He should get to plea his way out and only serve 5 years?