Do you think that the "Three Strikes" law is appropriate and do you think it prevents crime?

Question

The "Three Strikes" law sentences a three time convict to "life" on their third conviction. Sometimes the last crime does not even have to be a felony to give them that third strike? Will it deter criminals from commiting that third crime or is it just a waste of time (hey, that rhymes). This is serious. Please take it as that.

Answer 1

I think it's appropriate. If you can't get your life together after three crimes you belong in jail. On their 2nd strike i would think that they would think twice before committing that third strike.

Answer 2

No. For a start, the punishment really doesn't fit the crime. People can do some pretty stupid things but it seems unfair that someone that commits three lesser offenses can end up with a longer sentence then people that actually intended to cause harm.

I for one am amazed that my brother has never been arrested he's done so many idiot things but he just needed a chance to grow up. He's a Sublieutenant in the Navy now and loving it.

Also, people commit who crimes don't expect to get caught, otherwise most wouldn't commit them in the first place. If telling them they'll get punished if they get caught doesn't deter them, how well do think telling people thing's are going to be even worse for them if they get caught three times.

Answer 3

No it circumvents the values of our Justice system. That means humans making human decisions. Three strike bypasses that. Any kind of no tolerance law or policy is wrong.. Think of what Andy Griffith was trying to teach Barney Fife, when people are involved, you can't always go by the book Barn'.

This law short circuits the ability of a court to weigh justice. Remember those scales? A judge has no choice in the matter. Its straight to jail forever regardless of any mitigating circumstances.

Why not have computers instead of judges?

This whole idea was started by Newt Gingrich and his group of shameless enforcers. True Nazi's...

Answer 4

Anyone that commits three serious enough crimes is a burden to society.

I have a question for bnr_conspiracies, is a Sublieutenant kind of like a Lieutenant Junior Grade, or a new rank I've never heard of?

Answer 5

It isn't just petty crimes. They have to be major offenses such as murder, aggraved/armed robbery, rape, etc. I think it's appropriate because if a person is convicted of these types of offenses three times on seperate occasions, then they probably aren't fit to be in our society. I don't really think this type of law prevents crime because a lot of people don't know about it or just don't care.

Answer 6

It prevents the offender from offending a fourth time, yes. Those who offend don't do it the first, second and third times thinking they'll get caught - do they?

It isn't a preventative measure - there is no such thing as a deterrent to crime - there is such a thing as decriminalizing behaviors.

Answer 7

It is a good idea and it does make repeat offenders think about continuing their crimes or they will go down for good.
I would suggest though if you have a better idea, then post it.
But until then, it's academic to try and poke holes at something is at least somewhat effective as opposed to nothing.

Answer 8

It should be two strikes. C'mon. let us simplify this: if it were your mother or sister or wife you'd want it to be one strike and you're out. People are killed and raped each year by multiple time offenders. If they were in jail it couldn't happen. Enough said.

Answer 9

No it does not work. All they do is make bail and then run like hell (hey that rhymes)...