• 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
faithful_servant said:
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.
Click to expand...

The judge can already offer a solution tailored to the offender.

There is literally no reason to arbitrarily imprison people longer, in fact, it is blatantly unconstitutional.
 
Absentglare said:
The judge can already offer a solution tailored to the offender.
Click to expand...

The three strike law is not mandatory, so I not seeing your point?

There is literally no reason to arbitrarily imprison people longer, in fact, it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Not according to numerous (at least five) SC ruling its not.

But I wonder if you would want a repeat violent child sex rape offender living in your neighborhood? I think not! Is that reason enough?
 
antiquity said:
The three strike law is not mandatory, so I not seeing your point?



Not according to numerous (at least five) SC ruling its not.

But I wonder if you would want a repeat violent child sex rape offender living in your neighborhood? I think not! Is that reason enough?
Click to expand...

LOL in what way is it not mandatory ? Do people volunteer to be punished by the 3 strikes law in your view ?

Appeal to emotion fallacy. If you want to pay to keep people locked up for a terrible reason, then i question your judgement.
 
Absentglare said:
LOL in what way is it not mandatory ? Do people volunteer to be punished by the 3 strikes law in your view ?

Appeal to emotion fallacy. If you want to pay to keep people locked up for a terrible reason, then i question your judgement.
Click to expand...

How many time must I repeat this....it is not mandatory and asking if the law is voluntary is foolish...its up to the judge and the prosecutor to recommend to apply three strikes law or not. Each cased is different and very few are locked away forever under the law.
If you think keeping a serial rapist in jail is a bad reason... I hope you lock your doors at night.
 
Absentglare said:
The judge can already offer a solution tailored to the offender.

There is literally no reason to arbitrarily imprison people longer, in fact, it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It's not arbitrary, in fact, it's the exact opposite. It's is direct result of well defined parameters (which need to be changed to better accomplish the desired results of 3 strikes laws). Without 3 strikes laws, there is nothing that allows a judge to apply a greater punishment when it is needed. While 3 strike laws are generally poorly written and allow judges far less control over sentencing, they do have a purpose and one that is needed. We need to FIX the laws so that they can be applied correctly, not throw them out altogether. Judges need a legal basis for sentencing for repeat offenders that goes beyond the sentencing for first time offenders. While most 3 strike laws are very poor at correctly handling this, they do try to handle it. What we need are well written 3 strike laws that allow a judge to apply greater punishment to those who show a demonstrable disdain for law and society, while at the same time giving them flexibility to show leniency to those who have offended repeatedly due to a few bad choices made over a long period of time.
 
Absentglare said:
LOL in what way is it not mandatory ? Do people volunteer to be punished by the 3 strikes law in your view ?

Appeal to emotion fallacy. If you want to pay to keep people locked up for a terrible reason, then i question your judgement.
Click to expand...

Well no one forced them to commit the crimes and they know the law, so yes, as a matter of fact, they are volunteering. DON'T DO THE CRIME IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME.
 
antiquity said:
How many time must I repeat this....it is not mandatory and asking if the law is voluntary is foolish...its up to the judge and the prosecutor to recommend to apply three strikes law or not. Each cased is different and very few are locked away forever under the law.
If you think keeping a serial rapist in jail is a bad reason... I hope you lock your doors at night.
Click to expand...

Oh- i see. You do not acknowledge any legitimacy from the view of the defendant, and all you can offer otherwise is the same appeal to emotion fallacy.
 
faithful_servant said:
It's not arbitrary, in fact, it's the exact opposite. It's is direct result of well defined parameters (which need to be changed to better accomplish the desired results of 3 strikes laws). Without 3 strikes laws, there is nothing that allows a judge to apply a greater punishment when it is needed. While 3 strike laws are generally poorly written and allow judges far less control over sentencing, they do have a purpose and one that is needed. We need to FIX the laws so that they can be applied correctly, not throw them out altogether. Judges need a legal basis for sentencing for repeat offenders that goes beyond the sentencing for first time offenders. While most 3 strike laws are very poor at correctly handling this, they do try to handle it. What we need are well written 3 strike laws that allow a judge to apply greater punishment to those who show a demonstrable disdain for law and society, while at the same time giving them flexibility to show leniency to those who have offended repeatedly due to a few bad choices made over a long period of time.
Click to expand...

No, we don't, there is literally no reason to claim that we need this. You should not have an infinite amount of imprisonment based on the whims of the prosecutor and judge if you have prior crimes.
 
faithful_servant said:
Well no one forced them to commit the crimes and they know the law, so yes, as a matter of fact, they are volunteering. DON'T DO THE CRIME IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME.
Click to expand...

...

No, no they aren't. In fact, sometimes innocent people go to prison.
 
faithful_servant said:
Which is a completely different subject. Your attempt at shifting the goal posts has been noted...
Click to expand...

No, you claimed anyone with three strikes "volunteered" for imprisonment.

That is patently false as evidenced by the fact that innocent people get charged for crimes they never committed.
 
Absentglare said:
No, you claimed anyone with three strikes "volunteered" for imprisonment.

That is patently false as evidenced by the fact that innocent people get charged for crimes they never committed.
Click to expand...

So can you offer up an example of someone sentenced under a 3 strikes law who was innocent on every count??? That's the subject under discussion - 3 strikes laws.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Should the Federal Government Outlaw Three Strike Laws?
Click to expand...

Morally? The answer is trivially yes. Pragmatically, however, I'm pretty sure that it's going to cause loads of problems. Prisons have not really addressed rehabilitation, worker training, etc; communities haven't addressed how to employ ex-cons, etc. Many Americans believe that the US' criminal justice system exists to punish criminals, not to rehabilitate them --and that includes obstructing their abilities to lead normal lives after they get out of jail. This is one belief, on a list of many, that Americans believe which every year does more and more damage to the country. Couple this to the lack of jobs in general, and you're just adding to the probability that these people will go right back to jail. *sigh*


PS: Let's also not forget that private prisons will fight this tooth and nail (There needs to be a Constitutional amendment on what is allowed to be privatized), so it's probably not even a political reality right now, anyways. It would be good, though.

PPS: I wouldn't necessarily object to a variant of three-strikes for repeat offenders for serious violent crimes (murder, assault with intent to murder, etc). But putting people away for dealing drugs a few times, stealing cars, etc, are all crimes that are largely due to poverty. Right now we have a "prison welfare" system, so rather than investing in trying to reduce poverty (jobs programs, training programs, educational opportunities for the disadvantaged, etc), instead we're paying huge amounts to jail them and that money is going to the CEO's of privatized prisons. It makes me want to vomit.
 
faithful_servant said:
So can you offer up an example of someone sentenced under a 3 strikes law who was innocent on every count??? That's the subject under discussion - 3 strikes laws.
Click to expand...

If they are innocent of just one of the three crimes, then the application of the 3 strikes law was inappropriate by definition, but i am unsurprised that you seek to move the goalposts as your argument's ship has fully sunk.
 
Absentglare said:
Oh- i see. You do not acknowledge any legitimacy from the view of the defendant, and all you can offer otherwise is the same appeal to emotion fallacy.
Click to expand...

That is funny....acknowledging legitimacy from a predatory sex offender or a career criminal? How about the legitimate point of view by the victim? You should apply for a slot on Comedy Central. I don't know what you are appealing too but I sense liberalism at its finest.
 
Absentglare said:
...

No, no they aren't. In fact, sometimes innocent people go to prison.
Click to expand...

And somethings guilty people go free...s**t happens. But actually you are talking apples and oranges with the above statement.
 
antiquity said:
That is funny....acknowledging legitimacy from a predatory sex offender or a career criminal? How about the legitimate point of view by the victim? You should apply for a slot on Comedy Central. I don't know what you are appealing too but I sense liberalism at its finest.
Click to expand...

antiquity said:
And somethings guilty people go free...s**t happens. But actually you are talking apples and oranges with the above statement.
Click to expand...

No, we're talking about three strikes laws.

Tell me, if there's a 1% chance that the defendant is innocent, what's the percentage chance that a given defendant is innocent of 3 crimes that they are accused of ?
 
Absentglare said:
No, we're talking about three strikes laws.

Tell me, if there's a 1% chance that the defendant is innocent, what's the percentage chance that a given defendant is innocent of 3 crimes that they are accused of ?
Click to expand...

Probably zero....but under our system of justice its the job of both the prosecutor and the defendants lawyer, the judge and the jury to make that decision?
 
antiquity said:
Probably zero....but under our system of justice its the job of both the prosecutor and the defendants lawyer, the judge and the jury to make that decision?
Click to expand...

1% + 1% + 1% = 3%, not 0%.
 
Absentglare said:
1% + 1% + 1% = 3%, not 0%.
Click to expand...

Ah...frankly, that's not how a probability calculation goes. For three in a row, if you start from zero, it's: (1/100) X (1/100) X (1/100). I believe. [I now have vague memories stirring and it may or may not be more complicated than that]

Either wya....



I'd also put the probability that someone is innocent at over 1%. The probability that the person is guilty BUT that the prosecution does not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, yet the jury still convicts due to an error that the appellate court doesn't want to call reversible, is higher.



But the real problem is you have people who plead guilty to minor drug offenses twenty years ago. They keep clean, then screw up once, and they get life. Then the judge has no discretion. It's ridiculous, these three strike laws.

Even if they ARE guilty of the prior offenses, they very rarely deserve life for the third. These laws catch way more than just someone who, say, keeps racking up assault to murder charges.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Ah...frankly, that's not how a probability calculation goes. For three in a row, if you start from zero, it's: (1/100) X (1/100) X (1/100). I believe. [I now have vague memories stirring and it may or may not be more complicated than that]

Either wya....



I'd also put the probability that someone is innocent at over 1%. The probability that the person is guilty BUT that the prosecution does not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, yet the jury still convicts due to an error that the appellate court doesn't want to call reversible, is higher.



But the real problem is you have people who plead guilty to minor drug offenses twenty years ago. They keep clean, then screw up once, and they get life. Then the judge has no discretion. It's ridiculous, these three strike laws.

Even if they ARE guilty of the prior offenses, they very rarely deserve life for the third. These laws catch way more than just someone who, say, keeps racking up assault to murder charges.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about three independent counts, each one 1% chance (my blind guess that's almost guaranteed wrong). We're not measuring whether they're innocent exactly once, but whether they're innocent at least once.

But you're right, for their being guilty 3 times in a row, it's 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 = .970299 but it's about 97% chance.

And you're right that it's still ridiculous even in cases that they are guilty.
 
Absentglare said:
I'm talking about three independent counts, each one 1% chance (my blind guess that's almost guaranteed wrong). We're not measuring whether they're innocent exactly once, but whether they're innocent at least once.

But you're right, it's 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 = .970299 but it's about 97% chance.

And you're right that it's still ridiculous even in cases that they are guilty.
Click to expand...

Ah. At least once is different than innocent each time. Sorry, nvm. Misread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom