Post #16,328
11/3/01 8:59:23 AM
|
3 strikes sentence overturned
In what may be an astonishing display of judicial common sense, the 50-year sentence for a man convicted of stealing $153 has been [link|http://www.uniontribune.com/news/state/20011102-1451-threestrikes.html|overturned]. SAN FRANCISCO ? A federal appeals court Friday threw out a shoplifter's 50-year sentence under California's "three strikes" law as overly harsh, a ruling that could lead to hundreds of challenges from defendants who received near-life terms for petty crimes. I damn well hope this leads to hundreds of challenges. The guy had stolen nine videotapes, but since it was his third offense he was stuck with 50 years. (The thing that faintly surprises me was that they apparently called it a felony, but that's beside the point.) I am in favor of sensible three strikes sentencing laws, but as currently written and applied, they are usually apalling. Put a rapist in the slammer for life after the third offense, put an armed robber away for a good long time after three convictions, but for Christ's sake, a petty thief who stole some videotapes? "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #16,360
11/3/01 1:29:23 PM
|
Full agreement
I can support three strikes, but only if it's three violent offenses. None of this petty theft crap. You physically assult somebody three times we throw you out of the game, nothing less.
Of course we wouldn't need three strikes laws if our sentencing where sane to begin with. The whole reason we need three stike laws is because violent criminals are let go to make space for non-violent drug offenders that got 20 year mininum sentences.
Jay
|
Post #16,362
11/3/01 1:37:05 PM
|
Careful there..
You're coming perilously close to seeking sanity in a nation where lawyers outnumber engineers 10:1 and biznessmen run the new prisons!
Watch your back.
A.
|
Post #16,407
11/3/01 11:17:32 PM
|
Re: Careful there..
Forget floride, lets go with nation wide lithum dosages in the water supply.
Jay
|
Post #16,419
11/4/01 2:54:14 AM
|
Yup.. "Got Mil^h^h^h -Zac?"_____if there's $ in it...
|
Post #16,410
11/3/01 11:34:11 PM
|
so you believe habitual criminals
should be allowed to prey on us all because it isnt fair to lock them up for the rest of their life, they should have to take breaks of petty theft and robbery in between stretches. Isnt that inefficient?
just curious
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #16,420
11/4/01 2:59:20 AM
|
Hey.. we're *all* habitual criminals ___ if ya look close
and often enough.
Counted up the statutes lately?
Ever met anyone who couldn't be found culpable of Something?
3X trivial = still trivial, except under hysteria and "Wars On ___".
Me neither. "The rich like the poor are forbidden to sleep under bridges". That's our kinda doggerel too..
A.
|
Post #16,428
11/4/01 5:06:33 AM
|
"It should theoretically work."
Which is the usual argument in favour of it. Australia's Northen Territory has a similar law, only there it's called "mandatory sentencing". A lot of people are saying "Throw it out; it's not working" but I never hear anyone saying "Why isn't it working? Why isn't it an effective deterrent?"
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #16,430
11/4/01 5:19:43 AM
|
Is there ANY effective deterrent?
It seems even the death penalty is not effective as a deterrent (except for detering future acts by the subject of said penalty).
I don't think the people who commit most serious criminal acts can think very far ahead, like far ahead enough to when they might be caught. If you aren't going to get caught, then why worry about the penalty?
It has been said that 3 Strikes in California has resulted in more shoot-outs with police by those facing a third conviction, but I have seen no reliable statistics on that.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #16,434
11/4/01 6:08:38 AM
|
I think that might be the wrong question.
Your post rather highlights that. A deterrant not against committing a crime but against getting caught?
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes
Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #16,469
11/4/01 1:19:48 PM
|
Define "deterrent"
I seem to be saying that a lot.
Are we talking about a punishment that will stop OTHER people from commiting crimes?
If so, then I agree with Andrew. Nothing will stop people who don't plan beyond tomorrow. And most of the criminals out there are that type. Otherewise they wouldn't make such stupid mistakes and get caught.
If we're talking about stopping the person who committed the crime from doing it again, then death is no different from life inprisonment.
Which seems to be where the 3 strike rule is helping. Repeat offenders are locked up forever. At least, in Seattle the crime rate is dropping.
Given a set population
with X criminals (repeat)
Then locking up Y criminals means that only X-Y criminals are available to committ said crimes.
Well, in theory. In practice, the varieties of the human population shift the results back and forth.
To be truly effective, this would have to be combined with social programs aimed at preventing kids from becoming new criminals.
|
