• 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
T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Should the Federal Government Outlaw Three Strike Laws?
 
Yes, we need case by case and type of law broken judicial reason. That is removed with "Three Strike Law" thinking.
 
Sherman123 said:
How would they do that? Is there a federal three strikes law?
Click to expand...

c)Imprisonment of Certain Violent Felons.—

(1)Mandatory life imprisonment.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who is convicted in a court of the United States of a serious violent felony shall be sentenced to life imprisonment if—

(A)the person has been convicted (and those convictions have become final) on separate prior occasions in a court of the United States or of a State of—

(i)

2 or more serious violent felonies; or

(ii)

one or more serious violent felonies and one or more serious drug offenses; and

(B)

each serious violent felony or serious drug offense used as a basis for sentencing under this subsection, other than the first, was committed after the defendant’s conviction of the preceding serious violent felony or serious drug offense.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3559
 
Why Outlaw the Three Strike Laws?

3 serious violent felonies isn't enough?
 
Orly? said:
Why Outlaw the Three Strike Laws?

3 serious violent felonies isn't enough?
Click to expand...

Did you notice "Serious drug offenses?"

I kind of would like to know what constitutes a "Serious drug offense."

There is merit to AT LEAST CHANGING three strike laws to be strictly for violent felonies and not drug offenses.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Did you notice "Serious drug offenses?"

I kind of would like to know what constitutes a "Serious drug offense."

There is merit to AT LEAST CHANGING three strike laws to be strictly for violent felonies and not drug offenses.
Click to expand...

It means

(H)the term “serious drug offense” means—

(i)

an offense that is punishable under section 401(b)(1)(A) or 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), 848) or section 1010(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(A)); or

(ii)

an offense under State law that, had the offense been prosecuted in a court of the United States, would have been punishable under section 401(b)(1)(A) or 408 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), 848) or section 1010(b)(1)(A) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)(1)(A)).
Click to expand...
 
Orly? said:
What do those law sections mean?
Click to expand...

(a) Unlawful actsExcept as authorized by this subchapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally—
(1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or
(2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.
Click to expand...

(a) Unlawful actsAny person who—
(1) contrary to section 825, 952, 953, or 957 of this title, knowingly or intentionally imports or exports a controlled substance,
(2) contrary to section 955 of this title, knowingly or intentionally brings or possesses on board a vessel, aircraft, or vehicle a controlled substance, or
(3) contrary to section 959 of this title, manufactures, possesses with intent to distribute, or distributes a controlled substance,
Click to expand...

and the controlled substances with how much its takes to qualify

(i) 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin;
(ii) 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of—
(I) coca leaves, except coca leaves and extracts of coca leaves from which cocaine, ecgonine, and derivatives of ecgonine or their salts have been removed;
(II) cocaine, its salts, optical and geometric isomers, and salts of isomers;
(III) ecgonine, its derivatives, their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers; or
(IV) any compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of any of the substances referred to in subclauses (I) through (III);
(iii) 280 grams or more of a mixture or substance described in clause (ii) which contains cocaine base;
(iv) 100 grams or more of phencyclidine (PCP) or 1 kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of phencyclidine (PCP);
(v) 10 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD);
(vi) 400 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N- [ 1- ( 2-phenylethyl ) -4-piperidinyl ] propanamide or 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of any analogue of N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide;
(vii) 1000 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of marihuana, or 1,000 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight; or
(viii) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of its isomers or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, or salts of its isomers;
Click to expand...
 
The federal government could also pass a preemption law over the states...
 
Ok, sounds good... Keep the law..
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Should the Federal Government Outlaw Three Strike Laws?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

I didn't read anything about gum on the 1st page.. Maybe if dude steals the gum violently with a gun or something.. Then he deserves it anyway..
 
Orly? said:
I didn't read anything about gum on the 1st page.. Maybe if dude steals the gum violently with a gun or something.. Then he deserves it anyway..
Click to expand...

It varies state to state. For example, in California as long as the first two crimes were violent then the third one need not be.
 
No. I wouldn't. What I would change, however, is what constitutes a "Three Strikes" felony, as well as removing marijuana and peyote (used by Native Americans in religious ceremonies and grows wild in the deserts of the US so you can get caught with it not even knowing what it is) from being a Schedule One Drug and reduced from being a felony altogether. Other Schedule One Drugs such as heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), and methaqualone should keep their Schedule One status.

Basically, fix the laws, not the Three Strikes Rule. If the laws are fixed, then only violent felons and actually serious drug criminals will be subject to the Three Strikes Rule. Plus, after two chances to get their act together, a third time repeat felon has shown society that they are not able to fit into society and are a serious danger to society as a whole.
 
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...

IIRC, three strikes only applies to felonies, so unless a person is stealing a truckload of gum worth over $25,000.00 then the gum they stole would be a misdemeanor will not be subject to the three strikes rule.
 
No. It's an infringement on State's rights. Having said that, I do think that most states 3 strikes laws need to be modified. 3 class C felonies over twenty years does not justify the kind of punishment that most 3 strikes laws demand. These laws need to be modified so that someone who commits 3 armed robberies goes away for a VERY long time, while someone who commits 3 "driving while suspendeds" gets some additional time, but not to the extent of the first example.
 
Beaudreaux said:
No. I wouldn't. What I would change, however, is what constitutes a "Three Strikes" felony, as well as removing marijuana and peyote (used by Native Americans in religious ceremonies and grows wild in the deserts of the US so you can get caught with it not even knowing what it is) from being a Schedule One Drug and reduced from being a felony altogether. Other Schedule One Drugs such as heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), and methaqualone should keep their Schedule One status.

Basically, fix the laws, not the Three Strikes Rule. If the laws are fixed, then only violent felons and actually serious drug criminals will be subject to the Three Strikes Rule. Plus, after two chances to get their act together, a third time repeat felon has shown society that they are not able to fit into society and are a serious danger to society as a whole.
Click to expand...

Well, sure, if you want government to expand to nitpick whether each and every single one of the thousands of offenses constitutes as applicable under the three strikes law, then you could definitely go with that. Or we could just eliminate the three strikes law altogether and return to the principle of "let the punishment fit the crime."
 
I've always had a problem with laws that limit the Judge's ability to dispense justice on a case by case basis.

I don't agree with any kind of mandatory sentencing laws, or any other kinds of laws where politics affect justice.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Should the Federal Government Outlaw Three Strike Laws?
Click to expand...
Random thoughts...

1) *IF* we have these laws, they should be restricted to violent crimes. Some states, like California, allow the third crime to be virtually anything.

2) That being said, I am not a fan. Too much like "zero tolerance", taking away all the judicial discretion. I'm sorry, but we need to put flexibility back into the judicial system. It wasn't perfect, but it was better than the crap we're doing now.

3) Having that that... to the original question, not no, but Hell No! Like I said, I am not a fan, but this is squarely in a state's purview, not the federal government's. I'm getting tired of so many people wanting to federalize anything and everything.
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux said:
IIRC, three strikes only applies to felonies, so unless a person is stealing a truckload of gum worth over $25,000.00 then the gum they stole would be a misdemeanor will not be subject to the three strikes rule.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, sure, if you want government to expand to nitpick whether each and every single one of the thousands of offenses constitutes as applicable under the three strikes law, then you could definitely go with that. Or we could just eliminate the three strikes law altogether and return to the principle of "let the punishment fit the crime."
Click to expand...

Uniformity in sentencing could be argued to be implied by the Equal Protection Clause and maybe even the Due Process Clause, given that without it, criminals committing equal crimes could and would be sentenced differently in different courts from different judges. Some judges would give exceedingly light sentences for what could be a fifth or sixth felony offense while others could give sentences equaling life in prison - THAT would not be, and when we had it that way before was not, fair treatment or equal protection. Due process should be objective, not subjective, IMHO.

Additionally, three time violent felons have proved they have no respect for society, or our laws, or harming others, and should be removed from society for life.
 
faithful_servant said:
These laws need to be modified so that someone who commits 3 armed robberies goes away for a VERY long time, while someone who commits 3 "driving while suspendeds" gets some additional time, but not to the extent of the first example.
Click to expand...

"driving while suspendeds" are not felonies silly..
 
I was not aware that the Feds have the authority to pass such a law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom