• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Federal Government Outlaw Three Strike Laws?

Should the Federal Government Outlaw Three Strike Laws?

  • Total voters
    36
Captain Adverse said:
Whoa! Is that an example of the Pot calling the kettle "black?" ;)

Nothing is more black and white than three strike laws. They draw a bright line in the sand. Everyone who is not a three striker deals with justice-as-usual; Everyone who IS a three striker is trash to be collected and dumped into prison with enhanced sentencing.

On the other hand, allowing a judge to do his JOB and judge each person individually on his current crime and past history in order to set a punishment suitable for each person...how is THAT "black and white?"

The "FIX" you are looking for is not going to be found through Three Strike/Mandatory Sentencing.

No, the fix must be found in the efforts to prevent the causes of recidivism. How about keeping criminal records confidential so that only members of the justice system have access? How about expanding the ability to get records expunged? How about preventing employers from using past convictions as a method of weeding out job applicants? Essentially, how about removing the permanent stigma attached to past crimes which prevents people from reintegrating into society?

Efforts along that line would go a loooong way towards preventing "the problem of repeat offenders."
Click to expand...

..and had you read what I've said on this issue instead of just jumping up on your soap box and starting to pontificate, you would have seen that I don't support 3 strikes laws because they are inherently flawed, but I also see the need for a legal basis for sentencing based on repeat offences of similar crimes. It's the idea that a person who makes one bad decision should be treated the same as someone who has made the bad decision over and over again that is the problem that most "anti-3 strike" types fail to see. You're blathering on about crap that simply doesn't apply. "3 strike laws" should be designed to address the people who don't care about the law and aren't going to respond to efforts to get them to change that attitude. Not people who are trying to re-integrate into society, but those who are actively fighting against it.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes. The 8th amendment specifically prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." If the crime is stealing a pack of gum, even if it's the perpetrator's third crime, a life sentence most certainly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Click to expand...

There is no where in this country where shoplifting gum gets LWOP
 
Cardinal said:
Again, that's state by state. Not all states require the third offense to be violent, or even a felony. In any case this is a red herring. If under normal circumstances the state considers five years a suitable punishment for stealing a car, but then gives life imprisonment for the same crime to another person who has committed their third offense, what you're acknowledging is that the offender is receiving a punishment that no longer fits the crime.
Click to expand...

The punishment doesn't have to fit the crime, it has to fit the offender. Someone who's been given multiple Chances by the justice system and still hasn't gotten the memo will never reform. Hence they don't belong breathing the same free air as me who follows the law.

Over 60% of murders have prior criminal history, if anything else three strikes laws prevent dangerous criminals from graduating to murder
 
Captain Adverse said:
The best way to deal with repeat offenders is to allow the judge to decide on a case by case basis what punishment should be meted out. Too many assumptions are made of offenders based on mandatory "strike" laws.

My comments in this thread are not limited to Federal law. I am speaking of the Law at all levels, Federal, State, and local. A judges decision should only be limited in law as to the maximum punishment for a crime, not a mandated required sentence.
Click to expand...

So if a judge decides on their own to mete out LWOP without a law requiring it then you're cool?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
So if a judge decides on their own to mete out LWOP without a law requiring it then you're cool?
Click to expand...

I am going to assume LWOP means Life Without Parole in the context of this discussion. So, if that is within the sentencing range for the offense committed then yes I would be cool with such a sentence. Recall, every person convicted of a crime still has a right to appeal.

I don't see the point of your question though. :shrug:
 
faithful_servant said:
..and had you read what I've said on this issue instead of just jumping up on your soap box and starting to pontificate, you would have seen that I don't support 3 strikes laws because they are inherently flawed, but I also see the need for a legal basis for sentencing based on repeat offences of similar crimes. It's the idea that a person who makes one bad decision should be treated the same as someone who has made the bad decision over and over again that is the problem that most "anti-3 strike" types fail to see. You're blathering on about crap that simply doesn't apply. "3 strike laws" should be designed to address the people who don't care about the law and aren't going to respond to efforts to get them to change that attitude. Not people who are trying to re-integrate into society, but those who are actively fighting against it.
Click to expand...

First of all, I don't get on a soap-box, I prefer my high-horse because the view is better from up there. ;)

Second of all, I did read your original post. YOU were the one who responded thereafter with the "black or white" comment which prompted my second response.

Now in your latest response you claim you don't support three strike laws, and then espouse their necessity (see the bolded portion.) If you provide confusing position statements (although I think I read your position fairly clearly right from the start) you have no one to blame for misunderstandings but yourself. :shrug:
 
Captain Adverse said:
I am going to assume LWOP means Life Without Parole in the context of this discussion. So, if that is within the sentencing range for the offense committed then yes I would be cool with such a sentence. Recall, every person convicted of a crime still has a right to appeal.

I don't see the point of your question though. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It is fundamentally unfair to give judges that level of discretion, where they can decide anything from probation to LWOP.

On the other hand when sentencing guidelines are set by statute and judges can't substitute their own judgement for that of the legislature (or in Washingtons case the people, since our three strikes law which is also the first one ever enacted in the country, was the result of initiative 593 which was overwhelmingly supported by the voters)

You know exactly what your punishment will be before you commit a crime.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It is fundamentally unfair to give judges that level of discretion, where they can decide anything from probation to LWOP.
Click to expand...

Sez you! Nothing is fairer than to give a judge exactly that level of discretion on a case by case basis. Unless you think that Justice should be dispensed as if every defendant is a standard part on a conveyor belt.

That's exactly what their job is supposed to be, render a judgement on a case by case basis at their discretion within the range of minimum and maximum punishments under the law violated.

EMNofSeattle said:
On the other hand when sentencing guidelines are set by statute and judges can't substitute their own judgement for that of the legislature (or in Washingtons case the people, since our three strikes law which is also the first one ever enacted in the country, was the result of initiative 593 which was overwhelmingly supported by the voters)

You know exactly what your punishment will be before you commit a crime.
Click to expand...

Uh...no. The legislature's job is to enact law; defining the crime and establishing the range of punishments. It is NOT supposed to try to act as a judge by pre-determining individual sentences.

The fact that citizens like you want your legislators to do all of that is a significant cause of increased violence during the commission of crimes. When there is no leeway in punishment, there is no reason for a criminal to act with restraint. In fact, knowing he has nothing more to lose if he engages in a crime and gets caught, it behooves a criminal to act in ways to prevent getting caught and convicted. Killing witnesses, shooting it out with the cops, etc. However, if he thinks he has any type of chance for a lesser sentence due to restraint, then he is more likely to act with some restraint.

Also, making up laws requiring mandatory sentencing doesn't allow for any consideration of possible mitigating factors. These things should be left to the judge and jury dealing with each case. Not John Q Judgemental making generalized assumptions based on news reports and bias, pushing his legislators to get "tough on crime" because he thinks it makes justice simpler.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Sez you! Nothing is fairer than to give a judge exactly that level of discretion on a case by case basis. Unless you think that Justice should be dispensed as if every defendant is a standard part on a conveyor belt.

That's exactly what their job is supposed to be, render a judgement on a case by case basis at their discretion within the range of minimum and maximum punishments under the law violated.
Click to expand...
that's a very small part of their job, most of their job is legal procedure.

Uh...no. The legislature's job is to enact law; defining the crime and establishing the range of punishments. It is NOT supposed to try to act as a judge by pre-determining individual sentences.
Click to expand...

Three strikes is doing just that, the legislature says for three violent felonies the range is between LWOP and LWOP

The fact that citizens like you want your legislators to do all of that is a significant cause of increased violence during the commission of crimes. When there is no leeway in punishment, there is no reason for a criminal to act with restraint. In fact, knowing he has nothing more to lose if he engages in a crime and gets caught, it behooves a criminal to act in ways to prevent getting caught and convicted. Killing witnesses, shooting it out with the cops, etc. However, if he thinks he has any type of chance for a lesser sentence due to restraint, then he is more likely to act with some restraint.
Click to expand...

Unproven conjecture, by that logic there should be no punishment for crime because then criminals have no need to hurt anybody.
Hurting a witness is illegal as well, In most states killing someone just silence them is a capital offense

Also, making up laws requiring mandatory sentencing doesn't allow for any consideration of possible mitigating factors. These things should be left to the judge and jury dealing with each case. Not John Q Judgemental making generalized assumptions based on news reports and bias, pushing his legislators to get "tough on crime" because he thinks it makes justice simpler.
Click to expand...

There is no mitigating factor for repeated violent offenses. You can't allow people to escape the justice system by inventing a new excuse. Eventually they'll commit murder and be put away for life, so let's just put the away before they get to that point
 
Captain Adverse said:
Uh...no. The legislature's job is to enact law; defining the crime and establishing the range of punishments. It is NOT supposed to try to act as a judge by pre-determining individual sentences.

The fact that citizens like you want your legislators to do all of that is a significant cause of increased violence during the commission of crimes. When there is no leeway in punishment, there is no reason for a criminal to act with restraint. In fact, knowing he has nothing more to lose if he engages in a crime and gets caught, it behooves a criminal to act in ways to prevent getting caught and convicted. Killing witnesses, shooting it out with the cops, etc. However, if he thinks he has any type of chance for a lesser sentence due to restraint, then he is more likely to act with some restraint.
.
Click to expand...

And just to focus in on this point, we should not be setting criminal law based off of the hypothetical actions of a certain class of criminals who fear the tougher sentence.

If they kill cops or witnesses to escape then my response should be the death penalty. With a constitutional reform so they can't weasel out of the gallows with decades of bull **** appeals.

Also by upping the ante the criminals are escalating the potential response of citizens to include the use of deadly force to resist them. Violent criminals, the ones most often targeted by three strikes laws do not anticipate gettig caught and hence the actual probable punishment means little to them. The very nature of a violent criminal is sun that you can't just lower penalties and hope they don't hurt you.

John Adams once said when the Pasha of Tripoli demanded tribute to not harass american shipping, "millions for defence, not a cent for tribute" if you are weak in dealings with strong people, you're only demanding more abuse. By lowering sentences you embolden criminals to commit their crimes more freely, you also risk acts of vigilante justice by citizens fed up with crime, and crimes against public order committed by citizens who fear criminals more then the state (example : Bernie Goehtz)
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The punishment doesn't have to fit the crime, it has to fit the offender. Someone who's been given multiple Chances by the justice system and still hasn't gotten the memo will never reform. Hence they don't belong breathing the same free air as me who follows the law.

Over 60% of murders have prior criminal history, if anything else three strikes laws prevent dangerous criminals from graduating to murder
Click to expand...

Reform is a red herring because the U.S. penal system doesn't concern itself with rehabilitation. Norway has the lowest recidivism rate at 20% while the United States' is 76.6%. Also, while Norway's incarceration rate is 75 per 100,000 people, in the United States that rate is 707 per 100,000. It's a question of priorities, and clearly the priority of the United States justice system is incarceration. And considering the rate of recidivism, the American public is perfectly happy with that due to its emphasis on electing a "tough on crime" candidates; which in itself has led to a host of horrible policies, such as the disastrous War on Drugs, minimum sentencing and Asset Forfeiture.

And even all of that is irrelevant compared to my point, which is the principle that the punishment must fit the crime. Disagree with that? Fine. That's your opinion. But with the priorities and statistics that define our justice and penal systems, let's not pretend that rehabilitation is an overriding focus of them, not the least of which is when the prison system is privatized and is a powerful lobbying power in the United States when it comes to harsher prison sentences.
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
The judge can already take that into account.

Punishing based on past offenses is similar to double jeopardy.
Click to expand...

On March 5, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court held by a 5–4 majority that such sentences do not violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment or double jeopardy.

WASHINGTON, June 26— The constitutional protection against double jeopardy does not ordinarily apply to criminal sentencing, the Supreme Court ruled today in a decision that removed a legal cloud from the operation of some states' ''three strikes'' sentencing laws.
The 5-to-4 decision, upholding a ruling by the California Supreme Court, means that a state can have more than one chance to prove that a previous conviction qualifies as a ''strike'' that counts against a defendant in calculating an enhanced sentence for a new offense.
Click to expand...

Does that answer you question about double jeopardy.
 
jamesrage said:
I think 3 strikes laws should be modified to where each strike only applie to violent crimes like rape,armed robbery, accessory to murder, attempted murder, murder for hire and other similar violent crimes. I don't think it should apply to non-violent crime.
Click to expand...

In most cases it already does...actually in most cases up to the sentencing judge with a recommendation from the prosecutor as to what the final sentencing will be. The fact is its seldom used and the majority that have received the three strike sentence belong behind bars. Especially the rapist of children. IMO
 
antiquity said:
On March 5, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court held by a 5–4 majority that such sentences do not violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment or double jeopardy.



Does that answer you question about double jeopardy.
Click to expand...

That 4 justices of the supreme court agree with my interpretation ?

Yes, yes it does.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Should the Federal Government Outlaw Three Strike Laws?
Click to expand...

You know better than that. The federal government doesn't have the grant of power to do such a thing for anything but federal crimes.
 
Three strikes laws are a stupid abomination.

People get hooked because way back when they were younger, they made some mistakes with drugs. But they pleaded guilty because otherwise, they'd be stuck in jail until they finish what their sentence would be before even getting to trial. Plenty of innocent people also pled guilty in these circumstances. Then, later, they screw up and commit some other crime and get a life sentence.

It's just disgusting. You should only be punished one time for each crime you commit. Having a couple of drug charges shouldn't mean that if you're good for 20 years, but do something wrong, suddenly you're hit with life.

We also cannot afford to keep up this mass incarceration. (Our justice system cannot keep up with our criminal laws: 98% or so of defendants plead guilty. If defendants were really smart, they would form a compact in which every single one insists on exercising their right to a trial. Bring the whole thing down and force a sober reassessment of our super-criminalized society.)


Mandatory minimum sentencing laws also need to go.




Those who relish dealing out self-righteous condemnation of their fellow man may disagree...
 
Mr Person said:
Three strikes laws are a stupid abomination.

People get hooked because way back when they were younger, they made some mistakes with drugs. But they pleaded guilty because otherwise, they'd be stuck in jail until they finish what their sentence would be before even getting to trial. Plenty of innocent people also pled guilty in these circumstances. Then, later, they screw up and commit some other crime and get a life sentence.

It's just disgusting. You should only be punished one time for each crime you commit. Having a couple of drug charges shouldn't mean that if you're good for 20 years, but do something wrong, suddenly you're hit with life.

We also cannot afford to keep up this mass incarceration. (Our justice system cannot keep up with our criminal laws: 98% or so of defendants plead guilty. If defendants were really smart, they would form a compact in which every single one insists on exercising their right to a trial. Bring the whole thing down and force a sober reassessment of our super-criminalized society.)

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws also need to go.

Those who relish dealing out self-righteous condemnation of their fellow man may disagree...
Click to expand...

If you can't do the time don't do the crime is a good policy, don't you agree.
 
Captain Adverse said:
First of all, I don't get on a soap-box, I prefer my high-horse because the view is better from up there. ;)

Second of all, I did read your original post. YOU were the one who responded thereafter with the "black or white" comment which prompted my second response.

Now in your latest response you claim you don't support three strike laws, and then espouse their necessity (see the bolded portion.) If you provide confusing position statements (although I think I read your position fairly clearly right from the start) you have no one to blame for misunderstandings but yourself. :shrug:
Click to expand...

There you are with the black and white attitude again. There is a part of 3 strike laws that is good and that's the part where a dangerous repeat offender gets a harsher sentence due to their clear demonstration of a complete disregard for society or law. There is a bad part where anyone who commits too many felonies falls into that same category.

My position on this issue was made VERY clear:
It seems like most of the people here who oppose 3 strikes laws are taking an all or none approach. The reality is that there is merit to a correct application of 3 strikes laws. It isn't a black or white argument, it's a matter of finding the best way to deal with repeat offenders. Over-simplifying the issue is what has led to the bad taste that most 3 strikes laws have left in our mouths. There needs to be greater punishment dealt out to someone who has repeatedly committed violent crimes and even for those who commit the same type of crime over and over again (i.e. - if shoplifting equates to 30 days in jail, someone who gets convicted of shoplifting repeatedly should be getting 60, 90, 120 etc. days in jail). On the other hand, a person who gets 3 class C felonies over a 10 year span should be handled substantially differently. The solution isn't just to throw out the baby with the bath water, but rather to fix the existing laws. That needs to be done at the state level, not the federal level. This is a STATE issue and needs to be handled as such.
Click to expand...
 
faithful_servant said:
There you are with the black and white attitude again. There is a part of 3 strike laws that is good and that's the part where a dangerous repeat offender gets a harsher sentence due to their clear demonstration of a complete disregard for society or law. There is a bad part where anyone who commits too many felonies falls into that same category.

My position on this issue was made VERY clear:
Click to expand...

Again I read you correctly.

Now read ME correctly. There is NOTHING good about three strike laws...PERIOD!

Since we are at exact opposite poles on this topic I think we've exhausted further debate. :shrug:
 
Captain Adverse said:
Again I read you correctly.

Now read ME correctly. There is NOTHING good about three strike laws...PERIOD!

Since we are at exact opposite poles on this topic I think we've exhausted further debate. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So then you're just a whiner then... Got it. No solutions, no progress, just whine and complain and hope that someone else figures out how to solve the problems that plague our society...
 
faithful_servant said:
So then you're just a whiner then... Got it. No solutions, no progress, just whine and complain and hope that someone else figures out how to solve the problems that plague our society...
Click to expand...

This is a dishonest assessment.

You have brought nothing to the table but accusations of a black and white fallacy and, now, personal insults.

Hey, it's NOT a black and white fallacy when we say we don't want a specific law !! You can't say "Oh? You're against the death penalty ? Why so black and white- what about half death?" That's just plain ****ing stupid.
 
Absentglare said:
This is a dishonest assessment.

You have brought nothing to the table but accusations of a black and white fallacy and, now, personal insults.

Hey, it's NOT a black and white fallacy when we say we don't want a specific law !! You can't say "Oh? You're against the death penalty ? Why so black and white- what about half death?" That's just plain ****ing stupid.
Click to expand...

You offered no solutions to the problem of repeat offenders that 3 strike laws tries (very poorly) to address, just wanted 3 strikes laws thrown out with little in the way of reasons for it. Pretty much all you did was say that you didn't like them, so they should go away. No suggestions about how to handle repeat offenders, no dialog, just complaints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom