Politics 3 Strikes and You're Out?

The pizza thing is true...I posted a link (a page or 2 back), why would I make something like that up?

Here, since it seems people don't want to believe the pizza thing:

ROBINSON Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge. I'm Peter Robinson. Our show today, crime and punishment.

There was a time when penitentiaries were just that. Places to be penitent. Places where criminals atoned for their crimes. Many believe that in penitentiaries these days criminals spend less time atoning for their crimes than toning up their bodies. Weights, exercise equipment, radio, television, the idea is to rehabilitate the prisoners. In recent years there has been a growing movement to restore the old emphasis on punishment. Not this kind of weight. But this kind. The kind you use for breaking rocks.

With us today three guests. Charles Hobson is an attorney with the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Susan Estrich is a law professor at the University of Southern California. And Pamela Karlan is a law professor at Stanford.

We began by talking about one of the most famous or most notorious pieces of get tough on crime legislation.

THEY'RE NOT YANKEE PINSTRIPES

Here in California we have the so-called three strikes law enacted in 1994. The way it works is that if a criminal has two felonies on his record when he is found guilty of a third felony the judge must, the judge has no choice, the judge must sentence the criminal to at least 25 years in prison. You like that law?

HOBSON Yes.

ROBINSON Why?

HOBSON Two reasons. Number one. If you commit lots of felonies, you committed felonies beforehand, you're likely to commit them again. It's a good way to get hard core felons off the street. And number two, it is just bad. And it is actually its worse to commit more and more felonies. I mean it shows you haven't learned your lesson and if you haven't learned your lesson morally there is more reason to disapprove of you.

ROBINSON You know, it make senses to me. I have to say, if you got two serious charges against you and you commit a third one, why not lock 'em up?

ESTRICH Well, but that's not how it works. Well, of course lock him up. But that's not how three strikes laws work. I mean ours happen to be particularly badly written...

ROBINSON Ours being California's.

ESTRICH California. But the two previous strikes don't have to be violent.

HOBSON Serious or violent.

ESTRICH Well, but it's serious and serious.

ROBINSON Give me an example of a felony.

ESTRICH People think the guy who steals the piece of pizza, the third strike and then his last one was a check bounce.

ROBINSON Who is the pizza thief?

ESTRICH The pizza thief is the guy in Los Angeles who literally went out with some friends and saw some people at the next table eating a pizza that looked mighty good so he, on a dare, went up and stole a piece of the pepperoni pizza.

ROBINSON He stole a slice of pepperoni pizza?

ESTRICH Yeah.

ROBINSON And that's a felony?

ESTRICH Yeah, yeah.

HOBSON In California petty larceny with a petty theft with a prior conviction of theft is a felony.

ESTRICH And he had a check bouncing ten years ago, two check bouncings, so the...

ROBINSON Bouncing a check is a felony?

ESTRICH Yes.

KARLAN If you intentionally bounce.

ESTRICH If you intentionally bounce it.

ROBINSON Did it just get warmer in here?

ESTRICH It just got really hot in here and you came to understand something. In 99% of the prosecutors offices in America, when that guy came in with the piece of pizza and the check bouncing you would say this is garbage.

ROBINSON There's a felony missing here, though?

ESTRICH It was the first one 14 years ago. The guy is now engaged to be married.

HOBSON He had two serious...

ESTRICH ...the check bouncing, he's 36 years old, about to be married, and stolen a piece of pizza. Would you like to spend $20,000 a year for the next 30 years to lock this man up? And you put aside what you are doing to the human being's life and what he deserves. That is a really stupid way for a system of ______ resources to allocate money.

Transcript taken directly from this website: http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/main/uncommon/fall98/307.html


I'm sorry, but I think this law is absolutely absurd. This guy bounces two checks, and then steals a slice of pizza. And then gets 25-life for it?

It's plain stupid.
 
You didnt say the pizza thief had prior convictions...that makes a difference.

If you or I stole a piece of pizza it would not be considered a felony.
 
AliasHombre said:
You didnt say the pizza thief had prior convictions...that makes a difference.

If you or I stole a piece of pizza it would not be considered a felony.
[post="1288604"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


Of course he had prior covictions!! Do you not understand the law at all?!

It was his 'third strike'...meaning he had 2 other convictions.


The point is the fact that he's going to jail for the rest of his life for stealing the pizza.

That's the crime he's being sentenced for. And because he had bounced two checks and those were felonies it was his third offense.


In case you don't know about it, what happens is that after you commit your third felony (no matter how serious it is or not) you're put in jail for the rest of your life.

That's taken from my very first post on this issue. So, yes, it was stated that this was his third felony. (And in order to be labeled as committing a felony you do have to be convicted of it...because if not, then you may never have done it).
 
Jamison said:
Of course he had prior covictions!!  Do you not understand the law at all?!

It was his 'third strike'...meaning he had 2 other convictions.
The point is the fact that he's going to jail for the rest of his life for stealing the pizza.

That's the crime he's being sentenced for.  And because he had bounced two checks and those were felonies it was his third offense.
That's taken from my very first post on this issue.  So, yes, it was stated that this was his third felony.  (And in order to be labeled as committing a felony you do have to be convicted of it...because if not, then you may never have done it).
[post="1288632"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Sorry, I didn't assume they were theft convictions. That too makes a difference, casue without theft convictions i Don't know if pizza stealing would be a felony in that case.

Without the three strike law, how much prision time would that guy get?
 
AliasHombre said:
Sorry, I didn't assume they were theft convictions.  That too makes a difference, casue without theft convictions i Don't know if pizza stealing would be a felony in that case.

Without the three strike law, how much prision time would that guy get?
[post="1289296"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


They weren't theft convictions. The first two convictions were bouncing checks.


And without the three strikes law, how much time would he get?

I'd imagine for stealing the slice of pizza he wouldn't get any...but I don't know that for a fact. But considering how the law is laid out, it seems like he only got time for the pizza because it was his third strike.
 
AliasHombre said:
Bouncing a check is theft.
[post="1290126"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


I know...I got my words mixed up.


But it still doesn't take away from the fact that he was thrown in jail for stealing a slice of pizza.
 
He was thrown in jail for being stupid in my opinion. He did wrong once, twice, and learned nothing. Life is not the answer, but something more sevee than a slap on the wrist.

What if the law was changed so it gives a panel of judges (3) the option of putting someone away for three felonies, assuming they all take place after the signing of the bill, and at seperate times?
 
AliasHombre said:
He was thrown in jail for being stupid in my opinion.  He did wrong once, twice, and learned nothing.  Life is not the answer, but something more sevee than a slap on the wrist.

What if the law was changed so it gives a panel of judges (3) the option of putting someone away for three felonies, assuming they all take place after the signing of the bill, and at seperate times?
[post="1290372"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​



And option like that would be better. Then the judges could look at the severity of the crimes and decide whether or not it is warranted or not to lock the person up for life or not.
 
Back
Top