What do you think about the three strike law? Do you think it is beneficial?

Answer 1

I am a former prosecutor and am not a coddler of criminals. But I am strongly against this concept. Not all felonies are the same. In some states not much more than shoplifting is a felony. In some states possession of small quanities of certain drugs for personal use is a felony. Do you think it is right to send a drug user who has been caught three times with drugs for his own use to prison for the rest of his life?

It is useful only where there is a fair prosecutor who looks at the defendnat and what type of person they are and what kind of danger they are to the community. And based on that assessment makes a decision on whether to go forward on the three strike prosecution.

But when it is automatically applied or where is abused by prosecutors it often results in unfair and unjust results.

Because there is no way to prevent prosecutorial misconduct or failure to exercise good discretion I do not think it is a tool which should be available.

Answer 2

Three times in a row, do not stop, the old way it was dealt with did not work, maybe the three strike law would cause someone to stop breaking the law.
Go for it. Might work in some way that would perhaps work like the kid having to go get the switch for the upset parent when he/she did something wrong and might get switched for the punished if he/she did it again.............
Might think twice about doing it again.

Answer 3

Anyone with half a brain knows that prisons do not "rehabilitate" the vast maority of offenders. Been tried for centuries and it just don't work. By and large, those that do not re-offend, behave that way not because they learned a different way, but because they do not want to go back to prison or because their crime was an isolated incident.

The "Three-Strike" laws were put in place to deal with those just won't change their ways and will continue to re-offend. It locks them up for life so society doesn't have to be victemized by them any longer.

It is a useful piece of legislation that can and does go a long way towards protecting society from criminals. The problem I have with it is its application. It is applied too broadly in many cases. The minor street corner drug dealer who is non-violent doesn't need to go to prison for life.

Answer 4

I am against these types of laws because they rarely deter and remove discretion from the court, which has the particular case and facts before it. It is better to have a court consider the extenuating circumstances and decide whether to impose the full punishment or a lighter sentence. In addition, it is unfair for two people committing the same crime, for example robbery, to have such disproportionate sentences - one 5 years and the other go away for life, just because the other person had two priors for possession of marijuana.

Answer 5

Yes extremely beneficial. Let's put a stoner caught three times with weed in jail for 25 years, while we release a one time murderer or a rapist because the jails are over-crowded. That will make the streets safe for everyone.

Answer 6

The settled for a settlement that i think of benefited the two the colleges and the lecturers. i think of each time that a union runs right into a company or for that reason a school board that refuses to barter an equable settlement then they could desire to be allowed to withhold centers. it incredibly is the only element that they could save it honest.

Answer 7

I'm against it. I prefer the one strike law.

Answer 8

No, this law amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, and it fails to have the desired effect.

Answer 9

The backlash will have very bad consequences.

Answer 10

its ridiculious,it fills the prison system with drunk drivers and drug dealers where as rapists murders and pedophiles walk