Dagobahn Eagle Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 25 To Life. Three strikes, and you're in jail for 25 years. Even if the "strikes" are shoplifting or petty theft. What is your opinion? The state House Judiciary Committee agreed yesterday on a bill that would require criminals to serve a mandatory 30 years to life in prison after being convicted of a third violent felony, but added a provision that would allow criminals to ask the courts for lesser sentences in extraordinary circumstances. Source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I could swear that there was already something like this in Florida... And there is: 10-20-Life, for violent-gun crimes. I don't have a problem with it. Your source says after a third violent felony, and if a criminal is commiting a third violent crime, I highly doubt he's planning to stop. So why not keep them off the streets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 I think it's a good thing. If you're stupid enough to keep committing crimes after getting caught the first two times, you've pretty much proven that you're not going to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted June 23, 2006 Author Share Posted June 23, 2006 The problem is that it's being applied to non-violent crimes as well, such as shoplifting. The video's still free, and it has some examples. There are more people serving for petty crimes, like shoplifting, than for serious crimes. Shoplift thrice, and you're in jail for 25 years to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Point Man Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 What's the problem? If you don't want to go to jail, don't break the law. It's not rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 Good old blame-the-victim, hm? I notice it's become extremely popular among, well, everyone these days. By that reasoning, you could sentence them to whatever the Heck you want, as "it's their own fault for getting arrested". Maybe it is, but what you're doing is what you're doing. If it's wrong, like if you give a 19-year old a 25-year sentence for shoplifting, does it really matter much how dumb or smart the kid is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Good old blame-the-victim, hm? I notice it's become extremely popular among, well, everyone these days. By that reasoning, you could sentence them to whatever the Heck you want, as "it's their own fault for getting arrested". Maybe it is, but what you're doing is what you're doing. If it's wrong, like if you give a 19-year old a 25-year sentence for shoplifting, does it really matter much how dumb or smart the kid is? Well what do you expect? Besides, I'd hardly call a criminal who's committed a crime three times a victim. While I'm sure Life for shoftlifting is a bit extreme, I wouldn't mind if they got more than a couple of months in jail for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 While I'm sure Life for shoftlifting is a bit extreme, I wouldn't mind if they got more than a couple of months in jail for it.Isn't 25 years (1/4th of your life, for crying out loud) "a bit extreme", too? A speeding ticket, shoplifting, and petty theft, and you get 25 years of jail. Not to mention the huge cost of keeping them in there, and how it fills up the room of the prisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Isn't 25 years (1/4th of your life, for crying out loud) "a bit extreme", too? A speeding ticket, shoplifting, and petty theft, and you get 25 years of jail. Well, I don't know about Norway, but in the States, a speeding ticket/moving violation is usually an infractiion, or in serious cases a misdemeanor, then felony. Shoplifting is usually a misdemeanor, or depending on dollar amounts, a felony. I really don't think it's going to make much of a difference. If repeat offenders are still committing felonies one after the other, then something drastic should be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Yeah uh... shoplifting and speeding tickets are usually minor misdemeanors as far as I remember.. Pretty sure that after the second time, it's time to put them in jail. 25 to life is hard time, but after 3 serious crimes *shrugs* (not stealing golf clubs, that's a misdemeanor imo) then they should be jailed for a good amount of time. Perhaps 25 years is a bit much though, I'd say what, 6/7/8 range? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 I'm in favor of making punishments dependent on the number of times you've been caught. Say, double the fine/time/whatever for each incident after the first within the past N years, with N being a number somewhere between five and ten years. Or, maybe, something like 2 to the power of the number of crimes, divided by the number of years passed since each one (so that if I am caught speeding - which I won't be since I don't have a car, but nevermind that - and have been caught speeding 2 yrs ago and again 1.5 yrs ago, I would get the basic fine times 2^(1+1/1.5+1/2)... Of course, that'd require that someone in the legislature could actually do their basic arithmetics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 I think the mathematic formulas are a little excessive for this topic. As far as the "blame the victim" stuff, there are tons of organizations out there that specifically exist for helping people (can't watch the video yet, no internet at home, no sound at work). On top of that, under the three-strikes laws, you get three chances before you face 25-to-life. I don't see any problem with that. By the third time, you've shown pretty conclusively that you're not going to straighten out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 I thought you guys already had that? The problem with too inflexible sentencing rules is that they take away the power of the judge to take into account any extenuating circumstances. I often think that the government officials who make these rules need to play more RPGs. Play a few of them and you realise that if you don't take time to balance these things properly then the whole thing gets out of whack. Surely it would make more sense to add in a "number of offences" multiplier? One offence. Get normal sentance. Second offence, get double the sentance. third offence, get tripple the sentence. Etc.. This would mean that if your third offence was just jaywalking or something then you'd only get triple a minor snetence... but it would still re-enforce the fact that your multiplier is going up each time. Maybe even this would be too crude, and you'd have to add factors to the multiplier to take into account the seriousness of each crime. But the basic idea seems better. The majority of crimes ARE commited by the same repeat offenders.. but care has to be taken to make sure the sentances appear consistent and proportionate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Point Man Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 Good old blame-the-victim, hm? I notice it's become extremely popular among, well, everyone these days. Criminals are not victims, the people they assault and steal from are the victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 2, 2006 Share Posted July 2, 2006 well, the majority of theft is drugs related, so i guess you could say that they are victims too. But i really don't think that sticking black and white labels on people helps very much... it is just the sort of polarising rhetoric that politicians like to use to avoid actually fixing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Point Man Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 well, the majority of theft is drugs related, so i guess you could say that they are victims too. But didn't people agree here that drugs were good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 3, 2006 Share Posted July 3, 2006 But didn't people agree here that drugs were good? Marijuana can have medical value. The rest of them... eh... not so good for you. Unless you're Keith Richards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Drugs is a side issue. Some a re good, some are bad. like most things it usually depends on what you do with them. Being addicted to illegal hard drugs and having to have money to pay your dealer definately ISN'T GOOD though... and that is the cause of almost all robbery offences. Jail has its uses. It is a MINOR deterent to some people, but it's main use is simply that it keeps the offender out of society for a while. however if you can't lock up a burglar for life then you have to deal with the reality that they will be back OUT at some point... and if you haven't even tried to set them up with an ALTERNATIVE when they come out then they are certain to reoffend when they come back. Re-offending rates are sky high. there has been some success with a number of odd trial schemes - simply giving them vitamins every day reduced offending rates by about 80% i think... but ht egovernment cut the funding on that research. But basically, when they come out, they need to be clean, they need to have something to do, and preferably they need to have a job. Because otherwise they'll get bored, or get hooked, or hang around with the same people and they'll be in the exact same lifestyle that led them to crime in the first place... so why would anyone ever expect they wouldn't go back to crime. There are so many crappy things about this country that could be improved by having a large force of low paid workers at the disposal of local councils.. and those workers would hopefully be kept busy, learn skills, get some money and be able to get a better job as well. (If the only benefit of keeping someone in prison is that it keeps them from commiting crimes... then why not chain them to a desk 9-5. That gets in the way of commiting crimes about as effectively as bars. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 On MSNBC, there are these specials where they go inside jails and prisons and show the conditions. What's interesting is that some of them have boot camp programs, and they say that about 80% of the inmates in boot camp do not get in trouble again. So hey, I don't see why we're not seeing mandatory boot camp for all inmates, and if they don't cooperate, they can sit in a cell forever until they go along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Darn those inmates and their choices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Point Man Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 (If the only benefit of keeping someone in prison is that it keeps them from commiting crimes... then why not chain them to a desk 9-5. That gets in the way of commiting crimes about as effectively as bars. ) Unless you're an executive in Enron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.