Should the UK bring in a US style 'three strikes' for crooks?

Question

For those who aren't familiar with it, after their third conviction for a crime they go away for a REALLY long time. I'm all for it, I'd cheerfully cough up the extra tax for the prisons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_strikes_law

I should say for the Americans here that the UK doesn't have 'felony' or 'misdemeanor' crime categories. Because of the 'Rehabilitation of Offenders' act, after a set time period minor offences are considered 'spent'. This means that petty offences like shoplifting won't be on your record, and not taken into consideration if you offend years later. I wasn't suggesting we adopt your whole legal system.

I'd also like to add, that if the people who handed down the short sentences and wrote the laws were the victims of crime, instead of the working class that the crooks live amoung, the sentencing would be a lot harsher.

Answer 1

We already have it I think. However, the penalties that have been handed out for a 3rd strike are so poor that it's no deterrent to your average scumbag.
I've always thought a more effective method is to double the previous sentence everytime someone is back in court again. e.g., you got a year last time? well this time it's 2! then 4, then 8 and so on.... Then they'll either reform, or spend their life out of society. Either way suits me and I would also be willing to pay for it

Answer 2

no. It is one of the most abused and unfair, corrupt laws ever devised for a so-called civilised country.

You may already have convictions for drug possession or vandalism from your earlier life; a simple conviction for unpaid tax or something in later life could send you away for life.

It also denies judges the right to judge a case on its merits - you could just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, but because its your third strike you go down for 20 years.

VERY BAD IDEA and it only works for the poor - I don't know how many convictions Lindsay lohan has had, but she's still walking the streets, when your local mischief-makers get packed off to California state for a 20 stretch just for resisting arrest.

I don't like persistent offenders, but that law is just wrong.

Answer 3

No. Three strikes is just another way of overcrowding the prisons. Most people who are locked up under the three strikes rule are there because of drug offenses. I know people like to look down terribly on drug offenses, and stuff like that, but in the grand scheme of things, it makes no sense to pay tons of tax dollars (it costs around $30,000 per year to keep one person in jail) because someone got busted for marijuana possession 3 times...or twice for marijuana and once for getting into a fight or something.

Think about it in terms of real numbers. Say you put 100 people away for 10 years on the three strikes rule. That's 30 million dollars. for only 100 people. There are bound to be more people than that. The point of the corrections system is to correct. Locking people up for ridiculous amounts of time isn't really correcting anything. It's much cheaper and effective to sentence these people to rehabilitation.

Answer 4

Yes I totally agree. New York used to have one of the highest crime rates in the US in 70s and 80s and when 3 strikes policy was introduced it decerased massively. The only thing that will deter criminals is the fear of punishment. In this country (UK) convicted criminals usually only serve half of their sentence anyway and were told in the media that there is no more room in our prisons, so what is there to be feared. They should be building more prisons, life should mean life and criminals should not be rehabilitated but punished severely. Then maybe people would think twice before comitting a crime.

Answer 5

Wea already have in regard to violent crime

Criminal Justice Act 2003 and also the latest Sexual Offences Act

Answer 6

no thats the problem, people are more than willing to cough up the extra money for prison than prevent the cycle of recidivism..ask yourself this.. in some states driving w/o a license is a felony, theft is a felony..while they are crimes they are minuscule compared to murders in which %60 of them plea bargain for manslaughter and get out on average 10-20 yrs..on three strikes thats life for what most states consider it a misdemeanor and they get life while a murderer will get out in a matter of years...you tell me where is the logic?

Answer 7

There are already tarriffs for crimes like Life for rape but the judges will not exercise them. Its the judges that are the problem with sentencing. Old ladies get prison for non payment of Council Tax and real criminals get off.

Answer 8

For any chance for "three strikes" to be effective--more prisons will have to be constructed.

US and UK prison reforms have softened prison life to where we face a behemoth sized criminal society who'd rather give up on being law abident and have their needs met in prison at taxpayer expense.

Third strike for crimes calling for 10 year sentences are changed to having an offender serve 30 years--w/ NO sentence reduction, probation and/or parole. That will wake crooks up fast.

Death penalty reforms also need changing: Once handed the sentence, the convicted have 90 days to file for and be seen in court for an appeal. If they fail to apply or are denied an appeal for natural life in prison---they don't get another appeal chance and they face only 24 hours till they meet their fate.

We can then allow liberal softening of prison life--but it comes with a iron hearted price.

Answer 9

No, this is an awful idea and there are some terrible examples of people being sent to prison for three minor violations. The punishment should fit the crime.

Answer 10

Waste of time, waste of money. Far better to adopt a similar system to China but be more selective.

Take the real bad, violent criminals who keep on committing violent crimes and shoot them on waste ground in public. Keep doing it until the vast majority of this trash are dead.

End of.