Is it good or bad? and why do you hink that way?
Thank you.
Answers:
Well, you have to start with questions like this by not thinking in terms of 'good or bad.' Things like this aren't that simple. What should be asked is what are its effects? What are its effects on the criminals, on society, on economics?
As someone already mentioned, it is bad economically to put someone in jail for the rest of their lives because it costs the taxpayers money to feed these people. As for the criminals themselves, it has good and bad effects. For those who have already got two strikes, they are much less likely to commit the third strike if they know and care about the consequences. On the other hand, it makes people more likely to commit the first and second strikes because they know they can do it!
I think that there should be no general rule like this. Crime is too broad an area. There should be judges who decide whether or not a criminal can be rehabilitated or whether or not the criminal should be put to death. It should be cheaper to put the dangerous ones to death.
we dont have it here in oz so i cant say to much except,they say prision is about rehabilitating people,so i guess what i trying to say is ,in between the strikes did the government try to offer any assistance to the person if not i would say the 3 strike rule is just another government stuff up.
hey would you like to be the victim of a persons fourth strike, yea i thought so, it works, it keeps repeat trouble makes off the streets b/c you know if they commit 3 terrible crimes i dont think they are gonna stop
I think that being convicted a third time is a good indicator that the person is not going to change his/her behavior and that society needs to be protected from him/her.
As a disciplinary action, I am for it. As a tax payer, I am against it.
If you do the same stupid thing AND GET CAUGHT three times, you haven't even learned enough to become a better criminal. You are a useless drain on society. Please go away. I don't want to deal with your huddled mass.
But then I get to foot the bill for the rest of your life. I get to pay for all your meals, your housing, all the basics for sustaining life. You can complain that prison isn't much of a life, but it was your foolishness that put you in. You get three hot %26 a cot, no charge.
I have decided that if I have any major medical problem, I shall commit some crime with a hand gun. I will jaywalk with a hand gun. $15 fine for the jaywalking, two years for any crime with a gun. And I get some sweet medical care, free of charge.
Nah, that last part isn't true, I'm just upset because I have no health care.
We studied in crim law that punishment has several goals: rehabilitation, deterrence, retribution, and incapcitation. The 3 strikes rule is meant to incapacitate people. The idea is that after 3 felonies, the state of CA doesn't want those criminals committing any more crimes, so they put them away for good. I believe that a balance between each goal is good. The victim wants justice and so wants a sentence that is proportional to the crime at least (retribution). We want others to be deterred from committing the crime and the person who is committing the crime as well (general and specific deterrence). We want to rehabilitate the person so they don't do any more crimes by forcing them to get a job and check in with a parole officer while on parole (rehabilitation). Finally, we want to remove criminals from society if they cannot be stopped.
If the criminal keeps on committing crimes and violates their parol, what can we do? You can't rehabilitate people who don't want help. As someone who tutors high school kids in the inner city who later go to college, I don't see any legitimate excuse for committing crime after crime and running with gangs.
The question is whether the 3 strikes rule has benefited society. If you find that crime has gone down since it started and the extra costs to tax payers is worth it, then you can't argue against it. If on the other hand, the statistics show otherwise, then it is a failure.
Policy makers weigh the costs associated with crime against the costs associated with the judicial system
Check your statistics and you will find the answer
I am assuming that you are referring to the California version.
There are two major problems with most three strikes laws (including California's).
First, most of them include minor offenses in the three strikes. While I see no need for a third chance if the priors are violent offenses and would look them up for life on the second violent offense, I have trouble with looking up a person for life for the fourth bad check.
Second, most three strike laws establish the mandatory minimum only if the prosecutor chooses to charge an offender under the three strike laws. While a little discretion on the part of the prosecutor is a necessary part of the system, a three strike law gives too much leverage to the prosecutor (even if innocent how do you turn down a 3 year sentence when you will automatically get life if you go to trial).
My own preference is to increase the percentage of sentences to be served before being eligible for parole and to increase the sentencing range available to judges. Most judges will give stiff sentences to those repeat offenders who commit serious offenses while taking into account an appropriate balance of criminal history and nature of offense for less serious offenses.
Of course, increasing percentage of time served will require additional prison space, but so will mandating life sentences for repeat offenders.
I think it is 2 strikes too many!
I think it sucks, and no, I have never been convicted of anything other than traffic, and the last ticket was twenty years ago. I think it is exercised primarily on minorities and poor people who get stuck with public defenders. If the crimes are not violent or against children, I do not believe in throeing human beings away.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment