3 strikes in Cali is out? Is this the ballgame?Follow

A survey taken by the SF Chronicle reports that if voted on today the "Three Strikes" law would be amended from its' present wording which states that two of the three strikes must be a violent or serious felony to make a defendent eligible for the 25 to life sentencing. Under the proposed wording just the third and final strike would have to be a vicious felony for the stiff sentence.

While there is plenty of data which either side of this issue would use to bolster their position, I ask you where do you stand on this law?

Other than the cost issue my belief is that if a criminal is stupid enough to commit a third crime he probably needs to be incarcerated for the rest of his life, if for no other reason than terminal idiocy. After all, didn't he learn his lesson the first two times? How hard can it be to simply obey the law? If he is willing to engage in crime for a third time, why wouldn't he do a fourth, fifth, eightyth crime?

Perhaps rather than letting them off lightly, maybe we need to impose the death penalty for a third strike, no delay, execute them the following morning at dawn. It'd be efficient, cost effective, and if statistics and police are to be believed, since 1% of the criminals cause 90% of the crime, it'd deliver a sharp decrease in crime across the board.

As the board's only black man, I am firmly in favor of such harsh penalties. But then, I don't rape, rob, or vandalize stuff.

Totem

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

Twiztid

The law's a bad idea in general as it offers numerous inconsistent and fairly ludicrous sentances for a group of crimes over time. The idea that someone with two attempted mudrder charges does less time total than someone with three simple assault charges just doesn't make much sense.

Also passing a law using BASEBALL as your standard for measuring the severity of anything is a typically American and insane thing to do.

Seriously, stop fooling around.

Twiztid

Better

Twiztid

Totem starts a thread to discuss a questionable law in California, and we turn it into a stereotypical bashing of black men.

Sheesh.

Twiztid

I thought we had turned into a bashing of the typical sterotypes.

What? You mean that there are actually black people out there that don't steal and are actually hard working?

Only from a Democrat

Twiztid

Edited, Thu Jun 10 20:55:05 2004 by TwiztidSamurai

I would have bought it, seriously, but that "buddy" tipped me. Even the Fresh Prince's cousin didn't say "buddy".

I'm doing my best to fit in with all the white folk around here, but the institutionalized racism is so deep I'm not making much headway. I thought all you white folk say "buddy" to each other. Give a black man a break, will ya?

Totem

I would have bought it except for the fact that in none of his post did he type "wess side" or "*****".

"Just sayin."

Certainty of capture correlates far better with crime then does severity of punishment. Criminals don't think they will get caught. No, more severe penalties aren't generally effective. But people hate criminals more then they love cops so....

Lastly, unemployment correlates extremely well with crime - by far the cheapest way to prevent crime, statistically, is just to hire people.

I'm not saying what to do. I'm just passing on the figures.

Also, its clear that California's third strike should be a violent offense. Although prosecutors have always said they wouldn't abuse it of couse it has happened, as is human nature, and there are people serving life for pretty minor felonies.