Politics 3 Strikes and You're Out?

AliasHombre said:
Life sentences may not be the best solution to this problem, as it is a complete reversal of our current farce of a legal system.  We need to ease our legal system into relevance first with mandatory sentences for any felony, based on the type of crime.  No more 10-15 and out in 3 junk.

I'm not about rehabilitating criminals, if I had my way we'd fry em all.  This country needs to stop having so much sympathy for criminals.
[post="1283634"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


For once I pretty much agree with you. I'm not sure about frying 'em all (fry someone who stole a pizza?). But murders, rapists, pedophies, and child molesters should not get a chance to ever walk amongst the free again. And it would be nice if a life sentence always meant life...but it doesn't.
 
AliasHombre said:
Life sentences may not be the best solution to this problem, as it is a complete reversal of our current farce of a legal system.  We need to ease our legal system into relevance first with mandatory sentences for any felony, based on the type of crime.  No more 10-15 and out in 3 junk.

I'm not about rehabilitating criminals, if I had my way we'd fry em all.  This country needs to stop having so much sympathy for criminals.
[post="1283634"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
My God.

It's a good thing us liberals have so 'little' value for human life.

So should we be 'frying' every criminal? Even a teenager who stole a packet of cigarettes?

Why not just do a psychological evaluation on everybody at birth and fry them in advance?
 
Sarkney_fan020 said:
Fry every criminal? Even one who stole a pizza?  :rolleyes:
[post="1284280"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Way to take literal all i say. When i say fry em all, I mean rapists, murderers, kidnappers, molestors, and repeat offenders.
 
AliasHombre said:
Way to take literal all i say.  When i say fry em all, I mean rapists, murderers, kidnappers, molestors, and repeat offenders.
[post="1284993"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I agree, those mentioned above need to be fried. (And this is coming from someone who is against the death penalty.) Mostly, I'm sick of rapists and molesters getting too little time in prison, then being let back out on the street so they can do it again.

Murderers get a little fuzzier... because what about the battered women who kill their abusive husbands? A lot of them don't get off on self-defense. It makes me sad to see women in prison for life because they killed their abusive husbands. Many times, these women cannot escape, the police won't help them out, and they have no real alternative (besides letting themselves get beaten for the rest of their lives). These women shouldn't fry.

Why not just do a psychological evaluation on everybody at birth and fry them in advance?

Because psychological evaluations cannot determine if someone will kill anyone in the future. A person can have a disposition toward something, but can turn against that something if nurtured properly... and vice versa.

This turns into a question of human nature - whether evil exists, if human nature is inherantly good or evil. I think humans are born inherantly neutral... neither good nor evil, but maybe a whispering towards one way or the other.
 
Why not just do a psychological evaluation on everybody at birth and fry them in advance?

Existentialist said:
Because psychological evaluations cannot determine if someone will kill anyone in the future. A person can have a disposition toward something, but can turn against that something if nurtured properly... and vice versa.

[post="1285014"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I think she was being sarcastic.
 
Sarkney_fan020 said:
I think she was being sarcastic.
[post="1285079"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Uh, yes I was.

Sometimes I forget not everybody gets Australian and British humour.

If you have read any of my other posts you would know I am completely opposed to the death penalty, and disagree with EVERYTHING AliasHombre says
 
Existentialist said:
I agree, those mentioned above need to be fried. (And this is coming from someone who is against the death penalty.) Mostly, I'm sick of rapists and molesters getting too little time in prison, then being let back out on the street so they can do it again.

Murderers get a little fuzzier... because what about the battered women who kill their abusive husbands? A lot of them don't get off on self-defense. It makes me sad to see women in prison for life because they killed their abusive husbands. Many times, these women cannot escape, the police won't help them out, and they have no real alternative (besides letting themselves get beaten for the rest of their lives). These women shouldn't fry.
Well, obviously the fry em all idea is really meant to be a case by case thing. And in the case of battered women, most of those murders are crimes of passion and dont end up as life sentences for the woman.
 
And if I was talking seriously about the death penalty, I certainly wouldn't be using the phrase 'fry em all'. That is the sign of a person who has absolutely no respect for human life......
 
i actually think the three strikes law is too lenient. why should people be allowed to commit two felonies and be released? i also think that mentally ill criminals should not be put in prisons but rather mental hospitals because that way, they can be treated, because sometimes they cant control what they do. if that turns into a crime, then it's not their fault. if you put them in hospitals, not only will that prevent them from commiting more crimes, but it could be safer to society AND make it easier to find treatments for patients in the future. that would open up more room in prisons for the real criminals.

well, where's all the money going to come from? progressive taxes: increase the taxes while taxing the rich much more heavily. i understand raising taxes will be detrimental to some families living in poverty, but that would get me started on the whole Capitalism rant, so i wont go there.
 
I think we're being far too broad with the term 'criminal'. Some of us are using it to apply only to rapists and murderers, while other people are using it for everybody who has ever broken any minor law.

Obviously prison isn't the answer for everybody, because the US has a ridiculously high percentage of people in prison compared to elsewhere.

I was a psychology student, but I certainly don't think people can be reformed through a few counselling sessions. I just think there must be something very wrong with the way things are currently handled.
 
the_alliance said:
i actually think the three strikes law is too lenient. why should people be allowed to commit two felonies and be released?
[post="1285894"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Well, some felonies are huge, like murder or rape, and some felonies are small, like stealing cigarettes or a pack of gum. If someone shoplifts twice from a store, I don't think they should be in jail for the rest of their life....

I think the three strikes law is ridiculous, because people can go to jail for the rest of their life for three very small crimes, while it's the murderers, rapists, etc. that commit one or two times and are still on the streets. Who would you rather have on the street, a child molester or a dumb kid who shoplifted one too many times?

When I finish law school maybe I can help get this law abolished..... ;)
 
Please refresh yourselves on the definition of a felony.

Then ask yourself if petty theft (ie. a pack of cigarettes) would be considered a felony.
 
AliasHombre said:
Please refresh yourselves on the definition of a felony.

Then ask yourself if petty theft (ie. a pack of cigarettes) would be considered a felony.
[post="1286754"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Uh okay Mr High and Mighty, I never used the term felony, and a lot of the rest of us didn't either. :lame:
 
AliasHombre said:
Yes you did, the bleeping law this topic uses has the word FELONY in it.
[post="1286764"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Uh, read my posts before telling lies thank you very much.

And shall I refresh you on what you said?

I'm not about rehabilitating criminals, if I had my way we'd fry em all. This country needs to stop having so much sympathy for criminals.
 
I think it is interesting that (at least in California) the three strikes law was passed by the citizens as Initiative 593. So this isn't coming from the legislature, but the people. The Supreme Court has upheld mandatory sentencing laws and CA voters rejected Proposition 66, which would have required the third offense to be "serious or violent" in order to count. I think this amendment sounds reasonable and would prevent people from being sent to jail for life for minor felonies, like possessing a small amount of marijuana.
 
AliasHombre said:
Please refresh yourselves on the definition of a felony.

Then ask yourself if petty theft (ie. a pack of cigarettes) would be considered a felony.
[post="1286754"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​



Well, a guy got put in jail for life for stealing a pizza, because it was his third FELONY.

So, yes, if stealing a pizza can get you in jail, then a pack of cigarettes might too.



And I definitely don't think the law is too lenient. I think it's ridiculous. The major crimes (at least you'd hope...and in most cases) aren't really going to apply to this law. If you kill someone, then you should be going to jail for the rest of your life regardless of it's your first or third strike.

This law seems to be targeting petty crimes. Like robbery or minor marijuana possession.
 
Maybe thats the right way to go. People don't just go to serious crime, petty crime often comes first.

The three strikes and your out has a sound (and judicial) basis, the more crimes you commit, the more serious it becomes. The problem is when there isn't sufficent flexibility.

In Britain if you commit two serious, violent or sexual offences then you are imprisoned for life unless there is a mitigating reason. Here if the thing about the pizza is true, the judge probably didn't want to send him to jail for life but his hands were tied.

The problem then arises that judges have power and people don't like that so you get "why did he only get two years" and a lot of hype.
 
Back
Top