Three strikes

[Phreakmeister]

In California, quite recently the Three Strikes Act has been approved. What this law is about, is this:
After the 3rd time a person commits a crime, he or she will be sentenced to at least 20 to 25 years in prison, without a chance of parole.

This law doesn't make a difference between crimes. So a pickpocket will after his 3rd arrest be sentenced to 20 to 25 years in prison.

This law was approved, in order to break down on crime in California. However, it completely missed its target. Because the legislators forgot one vital issue: most criminals learn about crime in prison. They meet liaisons there, they learn ways of crime, they learn about the mistakes other people made, they learn what they should and shouldn't do when committing a crime, etc.

And besides that, it has ruined the lives of countless young men and women. People who were about to go to college, were sentenced to be released when they will be approaching their forties.

This law has increased crime, deepened contacts between criminals, and ruined the lives of gifted young men and women.

[This message has been edited by Phreakmeister (edited January 17, 2002).]

[ogb]

Are you sure with the pickpocket thing? Usually this is misdemeanour and no crime. In Germany crimes are defined as those criminal actions with a minimum sentence of one year.

This law definitely is unconstitutional. It is violating all principles of a fair trial.

Many do the mistake to believe that high punishments lower the crime rate, but this is completely wrong. In Germany under Hitler with all his death penalties there weren't less crimes than today. Usually the crime rate of the time goes the back to the social moral of the society.

[TV_Guy]

Gotta say this is a stupid law. Each crime should be looked at individually and sentenced appropriately.
I have lots to say on cracking down on crims though. I'll start a topic on Tougher Sentencing.
I suppose the topic of Death Penalty has been done to death. (Excuse the pun)

[Idnew]

Yeah it has TV. Do a search for it. I'm not sure if it's been archived or not, but if not you can revive it.

Not sure about that CA law, but here it's by points. You get so many points for each crime, when you get to a certain amount of points that usually determines your prison sentence.

I believe the above law would only apply to felony's not misdeameaners, but I don't know since I haven't read the law

------------------
(ô¿ô)Proud member of the Dumb Laws Mod Squad so watch it!*smile*

Attitude Ajustments Gladly Performed(ö¿ö)

My Home Spot (http://members.tripod.com/~freeatlast_3/Doing_Whatever.htm)

Brain Mania (http://www.brainmania.com)

Cosmic Coffee Shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
Meet The Squad (http://www.geocities.com/idnew52/Mod_Squad_Poster.htm)

[Phreakmeister]

Well, there has been the case of someone who got caught for burglary I think it was, and it was his third time he got caught. So he had to go to jail for at least 25 years.....

Originally posted by Phreakmeister:
In California, quite recently the Three Strikes Act has been approved. What this law is about, is this:
After the 3rd time a person commits a crime, he or she will be sentenced to at least 20 to 25 years in prison, without a chance of parole.

This law doesn't make a difference between crimes. So a pickpocket will after his 3rd arrest be sentenced to 20 to 25 years in prison.

This law was approved, in order to break down on crime in California. However, it completely missed its target. Because the legislators forgot one vital issue: most criminals learn about crime in prison. They mett liaisons there, they learn ways of crime, they learn about the mistakes other people made, they learn what they should and shouldn't do when committing a crime, etc.

And besides that, it has ruined the lives of countless young men and women. People who were about to go to college, were sentenced to be released when they will be approaching their forties.

This law has increased crime, deepened contacts with criminals, and ruined the lives of gifted young men and women.

Absolutley this is a great law. We do not want nor need habitual criminals on our streets. If we ruin a rapists life then hey, great. Until something better comes along, this law is outstanding.

[ogb]

Originally posted by Perry Mason:
Absolutley this is a great law. We do not want nor need habitual criminals on our streets. If we ruin a rapists life then hey, great. Until something better comes along, this law is outstanding.

This law doesn't have anything to do with rapists - or do you think that a rapist who is caught for the third time in California only sees 20 to 25 years???
As Phreakmeister said: this law failed, they don't have less crimes after introducing the law (although I disagree with the opinion PM states for it) - so I don't see what is great about it.

[weldordave]

It's three FELONIES and your out. It swept the west coast and you're right, it doesn't work. Between barristers, prision population, and money some felons get 20 strikes. Do you think the muckers at Enron will do time? They "stole" more than any bank robber has. P.S. I use muckers in the sense of muckrakers, not to try to get a word-play past Idnew.

[~wildangel~]

I'm in CA and from what I know is it's 3 Felonies your out, but it doesnt even work like that! Money, lawyers, ect.buys your way out of things http://www.dumblaws.com/ubb/rolleyes.gifI know this one guy (total !%!%!%!%!%!%!%) that already got his 3rd strike and is still out on the streets right now! As are millions of others!


------------------
~Wild, the angel of the Mod Squad~
~The MOD Squad~ (http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/serendipity/MSPoster/ModSquad.html)
The Coffee shop (http://pub83.ezboard.com/bcosmiccoffeeshop)
My family... (http://www.geocities.com/jssejmsgrl/Mypage.html)

Hello:

I'm in NY and went to university in CA. I also taught at a law school but am not a practicing attorney. Nonetheless, I do take an interest in the law and am familiar with the California statute mentioned.

That said, let's clear up a few things:

The Three Strikes statute is several years old--not recently passed legislation.

The sentence is life without parole for three VIOLENT felonies, but courts have interpreted it differently--which is why the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a recividist offender who was sentenced to life for shoplifting 6 videotapes from two different locations. Total retail value, according to the retailers, was $153.

The arrestee did have two prior violent felonies, but any reasonable person should be able to see that shoplifting is not violent, and that the sentence is out of proportion to the crime.

His defense counsel are arguing that his punishment is a clear violation of the US constitution and its provision against cruel and unusual punishement. I have no doubt they will prevail and sentence overturned.

I've also no doubt that he will commit another crime, perhaps violent as he was a drug offender--who turned to crime as a way to support his habit. I'm also certain he had few if any opportunities for treatment, as the US still sees drug use as a crime rather than a public health issue.

Don't get the idea that I am siding with the criminal, as I am not. However, I am a stauch proponent of our constitution and am concerned about how ignorant politicians are giving away rights that most would find unthinkable to lose.

Have a look at the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) of 1998 and read it carefully.
Then get scared and take action before it's too late.

The Constitution is here to protect all of us, not just criminals or corporations like Microsoft and Time Warner and their business interests.

Why? Here's an example:

I bought a used Silicon Graphics Workstation (computer and expensive) running IRIX as the operating system. It did not include an original copy of the CD for the OS. Under the terms of the EULA (End User License Agreement) only the ORIGINAL purchaser can make one copy of the CD for backup purposes.

If I were to do so I'd be guilty of multiple felonies. First for makying a copy, and then additional felonies for each time I booted up the PC. All of this for a product I purchased and use legally.

The real problem is that many of the sections in the DMCA and subsequent Anti Terrorism Act related to computers would make it easy for an agency to charge and convict me of three VIOLENT felonies, thus subject to the Three Strikes statute.

Just think about how it would affect you if software licensing law were applied to other consumer products.

Supposed you bought a used Chevy and were told you had to replace the tires with "Chevy" tires, and that each aftermarket tire you installed was a felony?

Would you be upset? Of course!

Fortunately the Hollings (Dem, SC) bill has been shelved for at least a year as the government had 3,500 e-mails and faxes from consumers who objected.

If you are not familiar with this legislation have a look:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51275,00.html

If you don't care don't blame others if it eventually passes. And learn to be happy with whatever media content the Media giants wish you to see, at the prices THEY dictate.

Sorry for the rant, but do have a look.

[weldordave]

Hi Donnchad! Glad to have such a staunch supporter of the Constitution! It seems to come under attack here quite often.