3 strikes and you are out for 25 years

[No Limit]

Trust me I have a far better understanding than you.

No you don't if you honestly have no problem with someone being locked up for for life for cocaine possesion. This has nothing to do with race. I lived in poverty for half my life and have seen drugs grab control of people. So no you do not seem to understand; what race you are has nothing to do with it.

You’re the one who brought race into the discussion.

yes, but I never brought up your race on implied you were racist; I simply stated this affects minorty males more than anyone else and for this reason society doesn't care about them, you acted like I aimed it directly at you.

If the guy who got 25 years for cocaine possession on the 3 strike law had served his time for the other two crimes he had committed then chances are all 3 crimes would add up to 25 years worth of time. He didn’t get 25 years on his first felony offense, nope he got a break, he didn’t’ get 25 years on his second felony offense, nope he got slapped on the wrist, The third felony how ever was the straw that broke the camels back.

More proof you don't get it. A judge almost never hands out a maximum sentence. For example, what is the maximum for coacine possesion? 5 years? Almost all cases end up with probation. If you think he got slapped on the wrist the first 2 times I might agree with you; I'm not exactly sure how long he served for each crime (I know his first and last were years apart). If he got slapped on the wrist we need to change that; however, nobody has the right to give out a small punshiment 2 times and then decide to throw away the person after the 3rd.

Society already gave him two chances to change his ways. This guy took those chances and said I’ll do what I damn well please, laughed in society’s face and committed another offense. Well now this guy is back in court on his 3rd charge and society says, we gave you two chances and what did you do, you got us the first time and yes you got us the second time, but you know what? This time we don’t want to hear it, this time you’ll do your time. In the end what goes around has a strange way coming back around.

Do you understand people get 10 years for homicide? This guy got 25 years in prison for coke. Your argument would be solid if we didn't have hearts and take in to account how ****ing long 25 years is. You really need to think about that part a little longer; where were you 25 years ago?

Is this why your arguing the point tooth and nail? I don’t know anything about you, however I do sense a lot of anger and frustration.

I know enough about you to know you are a hypocrite in this case; you have no problem with extremely harsh punishments as long as it doesn't happen to you or your friends. Again, would you be ok with not letting anyone drive after their 3rd traffic violation?

 

[No Limit]

I'm not sure if you edited your post or if I'm just blind (probably the latter) but I didn't see this:

Once again most states don’t have a 3 time speeding violation and you loose your license law, because most states can and do revoke or suspend driving privileges on the first account (if the offense is serious enough). Understand, depending on the circumstances you can loose your license on the first offense, call it a 1 strike your out law.

yes, for serious offenses like drinking and driving. I am talking about minor offenses. Speeding is illegal correct? Well if someone speeds 3 times they clearly won't ever stop breaking the law. So lets take their driving privileges away. This is what you are saying. For relatively minor charges you want to lock these people up and throw away the key because if you don't they will continue to do this.

Just a FYI, I had many friends who were addicted to drugs years ago. Most of them are good respected people now taking care of families, if you were in power these good people would be in prison right now and never coming out because you want to make these people the scape goat for other peoples actions.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The correlation to poor income / criminal rates I believe has more to do with the ethics of those who are committing the crime.

There are low income families who are good people and strive to do all they can. However, the criminals are obviously going to BE low income BECAUSE they aren't going to work. You're not going to typically see someone who'd commit burglary working in an office job, etc.

 

[seinfeldrules]

What in the world are you talking about? For you’re information my wife is black and I’m an American Indian….grow up.

Ahahah that was one of the more ironic things I've seen in awhile. (in a humorous, in your face kinda way)

 

[RZAL]

No Limit, we are going around in circles. If you want to show me a real case with real facts, from a creditable source then I'll roll with it.


The Criminal Life of Richard Allen Davis, The forging of California’s "3-strikes law".

When Polly Klass was murdered, a heart breaking cry was heard around the nation. When we learned the man who tortured her, then killed her was a career criminal, those cries turned to anger. How was this man allowed to walk free for any length of time? How was he allowed to slip in and out of the judicial systems hands? How was it possible that this man, this monster, was allowed to be free on the night that he kidnapped and murdered Polly Klaas? Richard Allen Davis' criminal record would begin in 1967 and continue until he viciously killed Polly Klaas. Here is Richard Allen Davis' life of crime.

March 6, 1967:
At age 12, Davis has his first contact with law enforcement when he was arrested for burglary in Chowchilla, where he lived with his grandmother.

May 24, 1967:
Arrested again for forging a $10 money order. He was briefly in Juvenile Hall before his father moved him and his siblings to La Honda.

Nov. 15, 1969:
Arrested for the burglary of a La Honda home.

Nov. 16, 1969:
The first of several occasions when Davis' father turns Davis and his older brother over to juvenile authorities for ``incorrigibility.''

September 15, 1970:
Arrested for participating in a motorcycle theft. A probation officer and judge accept his father's suggestion that he enlist in the Army to avoid being sent to the California Youth Authority.

July 1971:
Entered the Army. His military record reflects several infractions for AWOL, fighting, failure to report and morphine use.

Aug. 1972:
General discharge from the military.

Feb. 12, 1973:
Arrested in Redwood City for public drunkenness and resisting arrest. Placed on one-year summary probation.

April 21, 1973:
Arrested in Redwood City for being a minor in possession of liquor, burglary and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Charged with trespassing, later dismissed.

Aug. 13, 1973:
Arrested in Redwood City leaning against hedges extremely intoxicated. Released when he was sober.

Oct. 24, 1973:
Arrested in Redwood City on traffic warrants. Between April and October, he was implicated in more than 20 La Honda burglaries, leading a probation officer to report that residents were so angry at him, he might be in danger if he returned to La Honda. He pleaded guilty to burglary and was sentenced to six months in county jail and placed on three-years probation.

May 13, 1974:
Arrested for burglarizing South San Francisco High School. He is sent to the California Medical Facility, Vacaville, for a 90-diagnostic study. A county probation officer recommends prison, but proceedings are suspended when Davis enrolls in a Veterans Administration alcohol treatment program. He quits on the second day.

Sept. 16, 1974:
Sentenced to one year in county jail for the school burglary. He was allowed to leave jail to attend a Native American drug and alcohol treatment program. He failed to return, leaving behind two angry fellow inmates who had given Davis money to buy drugs and bring the contraband back to jail.

March 2, 1975:
After being released, the two inmates tracked Davis down and shot him in the back. He is rearrested on a probation violation for failing to return to jail. Later, he testified against the inmates, earning him the epithet of ``snitch'' from fellow inmates. He was placed in protective custody.

April 11, 1975:
Arrested for parole violation.

July 11, 1975:
Arrested for auto theft and possession of marijuana. Received 10-day jail sentence.

Aug. 13, 1975:
Probation revoked after arrest for San Francisco burglary and grand theft. He was sentenced to a term of from six months to 15 years in prison.

Aug. 2, 1976:
Paroled from Vacaville.

Sept. 24, 1976:
Abducted Frances Mays, a 26-year-old legal secretary, from the South Hayward BART station and attempted to sexually assault her. She escaped, hailed a passing car, in which California Highway Patrol Officer Jim Wentz was riding. Wentz arrested Davis.

Dec. 8, 1976:
Transferred to Napa State Hospital for psychiatric evaluation after he tried to hang himself in a cell at Alameda County Jail. He later admitted he faked the suicide attempt in order to be sent to a state hospital, where he could more easily escape. He was mistakenly admitted as a voluntarily patient rather than a prisoner.

Dec. 16, 1976:
Escaped from Napa State Hospital to went on a four-day crime spree in Napa. He broke into the home of Marjorie Mitchell, a nurse at the state hospital, and beat her on the head with a fire poker while she slept. He broke into the Napa County animal shelter and stole a shotgun. He used the shotgun to try to kidnap Hazel Frost, a bartender, as she climbed into her Cadillac outside a bar. When she saw he had bindings, she rolled out of the car, grabbed a gun from beneath the seat and fired six shots at the fleeing Davis.

Dec. 21, 1976:
Broke into the home of Josephine Kreiger, a bank employee, in La Honda. He was arrested by a San Mateo County sheriff's deputy hiding in brush behind the home with a shotgun.

June 1, 1977:
Sentenced to a term of one to 25 years in prison for the Mays kidnapping. A sexual assault charged is dropped as part of a plea bargain. He is later sentenced to concurrent terms for the Napa crime spree and the La Honda break-in.

March 4, 1982:
Paroled from the Deuel Vocational Institute in Tracy.

Nov. 30, 1984:
With new girlfriend-accomplice Sue Edwards, he pistol-whipped Selina Varich, a friend of Edwards' sister, in her Redwood City apartment and forced her to withdraw $6,000 from her bank account. Davis and Edwards make a successful escape.

March 22, 1985:
Arrested in Modesto when a police officer noticed a defective taillight. He and Edwards were charged with robbing a Yogurt Cup shop and the Delta National Bank in Modesto. Authorities in Kenniwick, Wash., were unaware for several years that the pair had robbed a bank, a Value Giant store and the Red Steer restaurant during the winter of 1984-85. Davis later confessed to the crimes in an attempt to implicate Edwards, whom he believed to have welched on a promise to help him while he was in prison.

June 27, 1993:
Paroled from the California Men's Colony, San Luis Obispo, after serving half of a 16-year sentence for the Varich kidnapping.

Oct. 1, 1993:
Davis kidnapped Polly Klaas during a slumber party at her Petaluma home and murdered her.

Oct. 19, 1993:
Arrested in Ukiah for drunken driving during the search for Polly. He failed to appear in court.

Nov. 30, 1993:
Arrested for parole violation on the Coyote Valley Indian reservation north of Ukiah, he is identified as the prime suspect in the kidnapping.

Dec. 4, 1993:
Davis provides investigators with information that leads them to Polly's body off Highway 101 near Cloverdale.

Dec. 7, 1993:
Charged with the kidnap-murder of Polly.

June 18, 1996:
Convicted of kidnap-murder of Polly.

August 5, 1996:
Superior Court jury in San Jose recommends death sentence.

Source: Sonoma County district attorney's office, court



Now this guy looks like a warm fuzzy little criminal, who's just misunderstood.

 

[KoreBolteR]

the question is, are they criminals for life, or is there some way to change them....?

how does prison change thier life at all?

 

[No Limit]

Rzal, interesting case. However, that case simply shows how corrupt our legal system is. That guy should have been locked up for much longer on those charges but was able to slide. This is wrong. However, what you want to do is punish every person that commits a crime simply because the system didn't work in that case. Is that fiar?

Let me point you to the constitution:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

translation: the punishment should fit the crime.

25 years to life for cocaince possesion, burglary, or theft is not a punishment that fits the crime. You wanted an example of a case, sure:

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear argument next term on the constitutionality of California's three-strikes law.
The issue before the justices is whether the effect of a law can be so draconian that it violates the Eighth Amendment's ban against "cruel and unusual punishment."

The underlying case involves a thief whose third strike involved two crimes of shoplifting, punished with two consecutive terms of 25 years to life.

The court record of the case reads like a study in haplessness.

Leandro Andrade and a female companion entered a Kmart in Ontario, Calif., on Nov. 4, 1995.

"Andrade looked around, selected some videotapes and stuffed them inside his trousers," the state's petition to the Supreme Court said. "Andrade looked around again, grabbed some more tapes, and stuffed them inside his trousers."

He made it only as far as the sidewalk in front of the store when he was stopped by security personnel and arrested for shoplifting. The value of the merchandise: $84.70.

While that charge was pending, Andrade and two female companions entered a Kmart in Montclair, Calif., two weeks later.

"Andrade selected a videotape and put it down the waist of his pants," the state's brief said. "Andrade selected two more tapes and went behind a partition."

He was again stopped and detained by store security personnel and charged with shoplifting. The value of the merchandise: $68.84.

Andrade was convicted by a state jury in San Bernardino, Calif., of two counts of petty theft. The jury also determined that Andrade had committed "three prior serious or violent felony convictions" under the meaning of California's three-strikes law.

A state judge sentenced him to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life. He would have to serve 50 years before being considered for parole. The state appeals courts upheld the sentence.

Andrade then took his case to federal court, but a U.S. judge rejected his claim that the California law constituted cruel and unusual punishment, banned by the Eighth Amendment.

Finally, a federal appeals court reversed. It said his sentence was "grossly disproportionate to his misdemeanor thefts of nine videotapes."

The appeals court pointed out that Andrade's two prior offenses were petty burglaries "enhanced to felonies as allowed under the California Penal Code, and then enhanced again to third and fourth strikes under California's Three Strikes and You're Out Law."

If Andrade's sentence were allowed to stand, the appeals court said, he "would not become eligible for parole until 2046, after serving 50 years, when he would be 87 years old."

California then asked the Supreme Court for review. It said the appeals court ruling conflicted with high court's precedent and the standard of review in constitutional cases as prescribed by Congress.

The Supreme Court should hear the case early next term, which begins in October.

Also Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear argument in a parallel case in tandem with Andrade's.

The second case involves Gary Albert Ewing, who stuffed three golf clubs down his pants in Los Angeles County.

Ewing also was sentenced to 25 years to life because of his prior convictions, a sentence upheld by the California appeals courts.

(No. 01-1127, Atty Gen Lockyer et al. vs. Andrade)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/1/201850.shtml

Sorry, I don't know where I could get his criminal record; maybe you can find something like that as you did in your source.

Now tell me, is 50 years in prison a just punishment for theft only because he stole something 3 times? You can't be serious if you believe that.

 

[RZAL]

No Limit that’s a much better argument. See below for the US Supreme Courts ruling on the 'Three Strikes' Sentences Rule.

The highest umpire in the land declared on Wednesday that the criminal justice system may impose stiff sentences, including life imprisonment, for repeat offenders under so-called "three strikes" laws without violating the constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" contained in the Eighth Amendment. The ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court also reaffirmed the proposition that the states may exercise broad discretion in experimenting with new ways to fight crime and impose punishment.

In Ewing v. California (No. 01-6978), a fragmented five-justice majority upheld the 25-years-to-life prison sentence of a career felon whose last conviction resulted from shoplifting three golf clubs priced at $399.

In an opinion authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Anthony Kennedy, the three held that although the sentence was "long," it was "justified by the State's public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons, and amply supported by [Ewing's] own long, serious criminal record." Furthermore, they ruled that imprisonment for 25-years-to-life was "not grossly disproportionate" to "the gravity of his offense ... for stealing nearly $1,200 worth of merchandise after previously having been convicted of at least two 'violent' or 'serious' felonies." As a result, the sentence did "not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments."

The other two votes necessary to uphold California's "three strikes and you're out" law were cast by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. However, they reiterated their position from previous cases that the Constitution permits such lengthy punishments regardless of the term because "the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of 'cruel and unusual punishments' was aimed at excluding only certain modes [or types] of punishment, and was not a 'guarantee against disproportionate sentences.'" In the words of Justice Thomas: "[T]he Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality principle."

Despite the split within the majority upholding the "three strikes" sentencing scheme, the Court made it clear state policymakers enjoy wide latitude in deciding to impose harsh prison sentences with an eye toward fighting crime. The ruling also signaled the Court's willingness to defer to legislative determinations of criminal punishments.

"Selecting sentencing rationales is generally a policy choice to be made by state legislatures, not federal courts," Justice O'Connor wrote. "Throughout the States, legislatures enacting three strikes law made a deliberate policy choice that individuals who have repeatedly engaged in serious or violent criminal behavior, and whose conduct has not been deterred by more conventional approaches to punishment, may be isolated from society in order to protect the public safety. Though three strike laws may be relatively new, our tradition of deferring to state legislatures in making and implementing such important policy decisions is longstanding."

Her opinion continued: "When the California Legislature enacted the three strikes law, it made a judgment that protecting the public safety requires incapacitating criminals who have already been convicted of at least one serious or violent crime. Nothing in the Eighth Amendment prohibits California from making that choice."

The justices explained that any criticism of criminal sentences should be properly directed to state legislators and elected officials who enact the laws.

"We do not sit as a 'superlegislature' to second-guess these policy choices."

Nevertheless, Justice O'Connor did not neglect to point out the success of California's change to "three strikes" sentencing. "Four years after the passage of California's three strikes law, the recidivism rate of parolees returned to prison for the commission of a new crime dropped by nearly 25 percent," she noted. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/us_supreme_court/three_strikes.htm
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

 

[RZAL]

Ok, I located the court documents you can review them here.
It includes both cases.
Lockyer et al. vs. Andrade (No. 01-1127)
Ewing v. California (No. 01-6978) Case PDF
http://www.cjlf.org/pdf/Ewing.pdf




Supreme Court Upholds 'Three Strikes' Law
NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, March 5, 2003
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court, in two 5-4 votes today, upheld California's "Three Strikes and You're Out" law.

The rulings came in cases in which two repeat offenders were sentenced to prison terms of 25 years and longer after stealing golf clubs and videotapes.
The court split along ideological lines, with the four liberals dissenting in each case and moderate conservative Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writing the opinion supporting the judgment for the five-member conservative majorities.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Anthony Kennedy signed on to O'Connor's opinion and reasoning. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the judgment, but for different reasons.

O'Connor said that the decision to imprison repeat offenders for 25 years to life after three violent or serious offenses was "a deliberate policy choice" of the California Legislature. "Any criticism of the law should be directed at the Legislature," O'Connor said. One defendant's "sentence is long, but so is his criminal history." The Eighth Amendment itself does not require the states to choose a particular philosophy of punishment, and the three-strikes law is "a rational legislative judgment." Speaking for herself, Rehnquist and Kennedy in the first case, O'Connor said the prevailing opinion held that the sentence "is not grossly disproportionate and therefore does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments."

In his separate concurring opinion, Scalia said the Eighth Amendment bans only certain kinds of punishment, not lengths of prison terms. Thomas said the Eighth Amendment does not contain a "grossly improportionate" principle.
Speaking for the dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said the legal question in one case was indeed whether the sentence was "grossly improportionate" to the offense. "Outside contemporary California, this sentence is truly unusual," Breyer said. Also, first-time perpetrators of more serious crimes normally receive less prison time, Breyer said, even in California.

How to Be a Loser
Each of the two cases decided Wednesday reads like a study in how to be a loser.

The first involves Gary Albert Ewing, who stuffed three golf clubs down his pants at a golf shop in Los Angeles County. According to court records, Ewing told a shop employee he was headed to the driving range. Instead he went to his car in the parking lot. His stiff-legged limp drew the employee's suspicions. Police were called and found the three clubs in Ewing's pants. The clubs were valued at $399 each, enough collectively to constitute felony theft. Ewing was sentenced to 25 years to life because of his criminal history: four prior felony convictions. The California appeals courts upheld the sentence. In the second case, Leandro Andrade and a female companion entered a Kmart store in Ontario, Calif., on Nov. 4, 1995.

"Andrade looked around, selected some videotapes and stuffed them inside his trousers," the state's petition to the Supreme Court said. "Andrade looked around again, grabbed some more tapes, and stuffed them inside his trousers."
He made it only as far as the sidewalk in front of the store when he was stopped by security personnel and arrested for shoplifting. The combined value of the merchandise was $84.70. While that charge was pending, Andrade and two female companions entered a Kmart store in Montclair, Calif., two weeks later. "Andrade selected a videotape and put it down the waist of his pants," the state's brief said. "Andrade selected two more tapes and went behind a partition." He was again stopped and detained by store security personnel and charged with shoplifting. The combined value of the merchandise in the second crime was $68.84.

Andrade was convicted by a state jury in San Bernardino, Calif., of two counts of petty theft. The jury determined that Andrade had committed "three prior serious or violent felony convictions" under the meaning of California's three-strikes law.
50 Years of Taxpayer-Supplied Room and Board
A state judge sentenced him to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life. That means he would have to serve 50 years before being considered for parole. The state appeals courts upheld the sentence. Andrade then took his case to federal court. A U.S. judge rejected his claim that the California law constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Finally, a federal appeals court reversed, saying his sentence was "grossly disproportionate to his misdemeanor thefts of nine videotapes."

The appeals court said Andrade's prior offenses were petty burglaries "enhanced to felonies as allowed under the California Penal Code, and then enhanced again to third and fourth strikes under California's Three Strikes and You're Out Law."
If Andrade's sentence were allowed to stand, the appeals court said, he "would not become eligible for parole until 2046, after serving 50 years, when he would be 87 years old."

The Supreme Court today upheld the lower court in the Ewing case and reversed the lower court in the Andrade case.
(Nos. 01-6978, Ewing vs. California; and 01-1127, Atty. Gen Lockyer et al. vs. Andrade.)
Copyright 2003 by United Press International.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/5/135214.shtml

 

[No Limit]

But look you are arguing this based on what our government said is legal and what is illegal. I do not have legal experiance and could never argue this with you. I am fully aware that what the goverment is doing they have a right to do. However, the way the constitution is set up using that legal summary you posted the goverment could throw people in to jail for life for speeding tickets; just becuase it is legal doesn't make it right. This is not what I have the topic here for; I am trying to argue what is morally right and what is morally wrong, not what the government can and can't do.

How to Be a Loser
Each of the two cases decided Wednesday reads like a study in how to be a loser.

They might be losers, I won't deny that. However, does that give us the right to throw them in a cell for the rest of their life? So again, do you think it is ok for those people to get 50 years in prison in the example I posted? Is it ok to get 25 to life in the first example I posted dealing with cocaine possesion? Is it right to allow people out of jail for murder in less time than the 2 cases I brought up here?

 

[Sainku]

So, the guy was caught twice and in some random stroke of genious thought if he broke the law again he could get away with it. But alas, he didn't and by screwing up three times he is now in jail for a very long time.
You would think being told never to break the law again or you will be punished serverly would be enough. Kind of like getting burnt by fire. If you touch fire and are hurt, you dont do it again. But this guy kept touching the metaphorical fire till his shirt burst in flames, and now he is paying for it. Sounds fine to me.

And this is not used for "Don't do it again" things like speeding tickets, but things like theft and drugs...

 

[firemachine69]

Well he may as well stay in jail, good luck finding a job with a criminal record.

 

[RZAL]

But look you are arguing this based on what our government said is legal and what is illegal. I do not have legal experience and could never argue this with you. I am fully aware that what the government is doing they have a right to do. However, the way the constitution is set up using that legal summary the government could throw people in to jail for life for speeding tickets; just because it is legal doesn't make it right. This is not what I have the topic here for; I am trying to argue what is morally right and what is morally wrong, not what the government can and can't do?

What is legal and right is also presumed to moral and is therefore is “just”


We could always use Thomas Jefferson’s argument, that the Federal Government should remain weak and decentralized and the States should retain their sovereignty. Think about it the “3 strike law”, gay marriage; abortion, gun control along with a number of other issues would be left for the state to decide.

If you don’t agree with the laws in your state, you could do one of two things (1) Lobby to have the laws changed (2) Move to a state with laws you agree with.

As is now, you would have to lobby the state and the federal government to change laws and in some cases ignore the supreme court rulings, or you could just move out of the country. You know some of those old dead guys known as our founding fathers really did know what they were talking about.

They might be losers, I won't deny that. However, does that give us the right to throw them in a cell for the rest of their life? So again, do you think it is ok for those people to get 50 years in prison in the example I posted? Is it ok to get 25 to life in the first example I posted dealing with cocaine possesion? Is it right to allow people out of jail for murder in less time than the 2 cases I brought up here?

Give me a real case to look at and I’ll give you my opinion. As for the first case you mentioned, it still falls under the US Supreme Courts habitual felon opinion. Sometime we need to debate the so-called “victimless crimes”, it seems like that is what you’re really asking.
I’ll get back to ya in a bit….

 

[No Limit]

What is legal is moral and just? That is not what you just said in this thread:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=73127

There are many laws that are unjust to certain people; the problem is those laws don't affect the majority so the majority doesn't give a shit; therefore no matter how much lobbying you do you can't change it even if you know it is wrong (as most people do). While I sit here trying to get you to reply to the case I posted people are currently rotting away in prison over minor crimes.

Give me a real case to look at and I’ll give you my opinion. As for the first case you mentioned, it still falls under the US Supreme Courts habitual felon opinion. Sometime we need to debate the so-called “victimless crimes”, it seems like that is what you’re really asking.
I’ll get back to ya in a bit….

Victimless crimes are exactly what I am talking about; take a look at the case I posted from the newsmax web site and give me your opinion on it. The first case I posted is also a real case but my source is from the Court TV channel so obviously I can't provide you with a link.

I think you are looking at this too much from a legal perspective; I want you to look at it with some feelings involved and actually consider the time frame they are being locked up for and consider the fact these are actual humans.

If you do not want to answer this that's fine; however, have you ever actually had a close friend that got addicted to drugs?

 

[No Limit]

Well he may as well stay in jail, good luck finding a job with a criminal record.

So you should be the one to decide this for them? Why don't we just kill off mentally ill people; good luck finding a job when you are retarded.

 

[No Limit]

So, the guy was caught twice and in some random stroke of genious thought if he broke the law again he could get away with it. But alas, he didn't and by screwing up three times he is now in jail for a very long time.
You would think being told never to break the law again or you will be punished serverly would be enough. Kind of like getting burnt by fire. If you touch fire and are hurt, you dont do it again. But this guy kept touching the metaphorical fire till his shirt burst in flames, and now he is paying for it. Sounds fine to me.

And this is not used for "Don't do it again" things like speeding tickets, but things like theft and drugs...

So "Don't do it again" only applies to things you don't do? You clearly have no understanding of addiction and of poverty like many people that put this law in to place don't. Again, there is absolutely no reason anyone should get more time for cocaine possesion than for murder.; are you disputing this?

 

[Sainku]

So "Don't do it again" only applies to things you don't do? You clearly have no understanding of addiction and of poverty like many people that put this law in to place don't. Again, there is absolutely no reason anyone should get more time for cocaine possesion than for murder.; are you disputing this?

No, but he didnt just do drugs, he commited theft, twice. And since he is a repeat offender he gets more time. However I believe this punishment was a little over the top, but overall I agree with the law and have little to no sympathy for this man. And do not tell me I have no understanding of addiction and poverty, you do not know me and have no idea what I have or have not been through.

If you think speeding tickets are as bad as stealing from another persons home then you seriously need to straighten out your priorities, and just so you know I have never got a speeding ticket.

 

[No Limit]

No, but he didnt just do drugs, he commited theft, twice. And since he is a repeat offender he gets more time. However I believe this punishment was a little over the top, but overall I agree with the law and have little to no sympathy for this man. And do not tell me I have no understanding of addiction and poverty, you do not know me and have no idea what I have or have not been through.

Again, if you think getting 25 years for cocaine possesion is just you do not have an understanding of addiction; I don't need to know any more about you to know that.

He did commit theft, petty theft. I wouldn't be suprised if you did this at some point in your life. When I was a kid I shop lifted a couple times like most young people do; does that make me a no good low life bastard and should I be in jail for life because I ****ed up a couple times when I was young?

 

[No Limit]

If you think speeding tickets are as bad as stealing from another persons home then you seriously need to straighten out your priorities, and just so you know I have never got a speeding ticket.

When did I say that? I never called for life in prison for speeding tickets. However, I can gurantee you that speeding kills more people each year than from burglary and maybe even drugs. I said, if you apply your logic that they shouldn't do it again after they are caught simply because we tell them not to we should apply this logic to driving since it would be so easy to stop. If you get caught with 3 violations you can never drive again. If we did this I gurantee you driving deaths would be cut in half; however, does that manke it right? This is exactly what you are doing to these people.

 

[KoreBolteR]

should I be in jail for life because I ****ed up when I was young?

hmm reminds me of 'Red', from the film Shawshank Redemption..

anyways, we need to find out a solution to this, are the offenders going to change thier ways with some education, or are they gonna keep on offending and offending which will jus waste peoples times, and possibly thier lives.

 

[No Limit]

hmm reminds me of 'Red', from the film Shawshank Redemption..

Red was there for murder; we are talking about petty theft and drug possesion.

Kind of off topic but that was a excellent movie if you haven't seen it yet.

 

[KoreBolteR]

Red was there for murder; we are talking about petty theft and drug possesion.

Kind of off topic but that was a excellent movie if you haven't seen it yet.

my favourite movie .

sorry i thought you was talking about all crimes. :E

 

[Sainku]

Again, if you think getting 25 years for cocaine possesion is just you do not have an understanding of addiction; I don't need to know any more about you to know that.

Again, he isnt in for 25 years for cocaine, he is in because he broke the law 3 times more than anything. I also told you that I thought this was a little over the top, he probably didnt deserve 25 years.

You are always acussing people of twisting your words and yet you do it yourself, you are not worth arguing with.

He did commit theft, petty theft. I wouldn't be suprised if you did this at some point in your life. When I was a kid I shop lifted a couple times like most young people do; does that make me a no good low life bastard and should I be in jail for life because I ****ed up a couple times when I was young?

If he stole something from a home it wasnt petty theft, he didnt do it in the spur of the moment he went into somones house and took something.

When I was 3 I took a piece of peppermint from a giant candy jar and I have regreted it my entire freaking life. but I learned something from this and never did/will never do anything like it again.

No you should be put in jail for 25 years because you "****ed" up when you were young, but you should at least never do it again.

I hope you learned something from it about yourself at least.

 

[No Limit]

Again, he isnt in for 25 years for cocaine, he is in because he broke the law 3 times more than anything.

He broke the law 3 times, yes, however, all those crimes wouldn't add up to 10 years in prison, especially not life. Also, he served his time for the 2 first crimes; the third (coke possesion) he didn't. Therefore he is serving 25 years to life for possesion.

If he stole something from a home it wasnt petty theft, he didnt do it in the spur of the moment he went into somones house and took something.

I'm not really sure about the circumstances of that case. However, a lot of times stealing from a home can be petty theft (taking something from an open garage for example).

No you should be put in jail because you "****ed" up when you were young, but you should at least never do it again.

I hope you learned something from it about yourself at least.

Too late for that; I ****ed up when I was young so now I'm in jail for life. Even if I do grow up and learn what I did was wrong I can't change my fate; at least not for the next 25 years.

You keep ignoring my point. Is it ok (and I'll take all the 3 crimes in to consideration to make you happy even though he already served time for them) to get a life sentence for 2 counts of burglary and one count of cocaine possesion (the cocaine possesion was 10 years after his last burglary) while people get out in 10-15 years for murder? Please don't avoid this question, you've done it every time I've asked.

 

[Sainku]

I also told you that I thought this was a little over the top, he probably didnt deserve 25 years.

I answered it twice. 25 is a little much, but I can easily see 10-15 years, the purpose of prison is to correct and he obviously wasn't corrected.

Besides, a regular muderer doesn't get out in 15 years. Only if you have honorless dirtbag trial lawyers who like to find loopholes in laws.

 

[No Limit]

I answered it twice. 25 is a little much, but I can easily see 10-15 years, the purpose of prison is to correct and he obviously wasn't corrected.

Besides, a regular muderer doesn't get out in 15 years. Only if you have honorless dirtbag trial lawyers who like to find loopholes in laws.

If you count parole most murders get out in 15 years. In the 3 strikes law there is no parole so they will always serve more than the minimum.

Thank you for the clear answerr that you agree the law is too harsh, that's what I wanted from you. Now we need to get Rzal on board as he still hasn't answered that question.

Also, prison never corrects; it almost always has the opposite effect; but that is for another discussion.

 

[RZAL]

What is legal is moral and just? That is not what you just said in this thread:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=73127

There are many laws that are unjust to certain people; the problem is those laws don't affect the majority so the majority doesn't give a shit; therefore no matter how much lobbying you do you can't change it even if you know it is wrong (as most people do). While I sit here trying to get you to reply to the case I posted people are currently rotting away in prison over minor crimes.

What is legal and right is also presumed to moral and is therefore is “just” Look at the word “presumed”. The eminent domain thread regards the interpretation of the eminent domain law, or I should say the misinterpretation of it.

As early as 1795, the U.S. Supreme Court described the power of eminent domain—where the government takes someone’s property for a “public use”—as “the despotic power.” The danger of such an extreme power led the authors of the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions to limit the power of eminent domain in two ways. First, the government had to pay “just compensation.” And second, even with just compensation, the government could take property only for “public use.” To most people, the meaning of “public use” is fairly obvious—things like highways, bridges, prisons, and courts.

This is not the same as this

No one—at least no one besides lawyers and bureaucrats—would think “public use” means a casino, condominiums or a private office building. Yet these days, that’s exactly how state and local governments use eminent domain—as part of corporate welfare incentive packages and deals for more politically favored businesses. This is the first report ever to document and quantify the uses and threats of eminent domain for private parties.

This is a case where the government has been misusing the law per previous court cases. Besides, eminent domain is nowhere close to the 3-strike law.

Victimless crimes are exactly what I am talking about; take a look at the case I posted from the newsmax web site and give me your opinion on it. The first case I posted is also a real case but my source is from the Court TV channel so obviously I can't provide you with a link. .

I will but it may be tomorrow, starting to get busy now.

I think you are looking at this too much from a legal perspective; I want you to look at it with some feelings involved and actually consider the time frame they are being locked up for and consider the fact these are actual humans.

If you do not want to answer this that's fine; however, have you ever actually had a close friend that got addicted to drugs?

On which case?

 

[No Limit]

What is legal and right is also presumed to moral and is therefore is “just” Look at the word “presumed”. The eminent domain thread regards the interpretation of the eminent domain law, or I should say the misinterpretation of it.

But this can apply to everything, including the constitution. Our government gets a bunch of lawyers to interpret the constitution and they come up with "oh, the constitution doesn't mention how long we can send someone to prison" so the government adapts that interpretation as law. I don't need to be telling you this as you know it but my point is just because it is law it doesn't mean it is 'just' or right; as in the case of the eminent domain law.

This is a case where the government has been misusing the law per previous court cases. Besides, eminent domain is nowhere close to the 3-strike law.

But do you see what I am getting at? In this case you are saying the government is misusing the law; in the case of 3 strikes when I say they are misusing it you say it is just and moral because it is law.

I will but it may be tomorrow, starting to get busy now.

Ok.

On which case?

Pick which ever one you think will give you the most information, its a simple question. All I want to get from you is; yes, he should be locked up for 25 (or 50) years and why he should be locked up for this long or that he shouldn't be; simple as that. Once you do that we can get away from this legal talk and actually discuss if this law is right or wrong.

 

[RZAL]

I was watching an excellent show last night on Court TV about the 3 strikes law (I think it was anatomy of the crime). It provided an example of a person who is in prision for the next 25 years because of this law and all he was arrested for was minor drug possesion. In the 80s he was arrested twice for petty burglary and in 94 he was arrested in a motel room for minor posession of cocaine (strike 3). By law the minimum time he would need to serve was 25 years. So since 94 this guy has been in prison and won't be getting out for another 10 years or so for a small rock. What do you all think of this wonderful law that is in effect in around 39 states?

1 Count of drug possession, let’s say its misdemeanor for sake of argument.
1 Count of possession of cocaine, let’s say its misdemeanor for sake of argument
2 Counts of burglary, let’s say its misdemeanor for sake of argument.

Then I would say 25 years is a little stiff. Now for sake of argument lets say he was charged with:

1 Count of felony drug possession.
1 Count of felony possession of cocaine.
2 Counts of felony 1st degree burglary.

Then I would say 25 years fits the crime.

Now for the second case Lockyer v. Andrade

1982 conviction for a misdemeanor theft offense
1982 conviction for multiple counts of first-degree residential burglary
1988 convictioned in federal court of transportation of marijuana
1990 conviction for a misdemeanor petty theft
1990 convicted again in federal court for felony of transportation of marijuana
1991 Andrade was arrested for a state parole violation — escape from federal prison.

I have to agree with Justice O'Connor's opinion in Andrade tells the whole truth. Quoting Andrade's pre-sentencing report from a probation officer, O'Connor writes, "The defendant admitted committing the offense. The defendant further stated he went into the K-Mart Store to steal videos. He took four of them to sell so he could buy heroin. He has been a heroin addict since 1977. He says when he gets out of jail or prison he always does something stupid. He admits his addiction controls his life and he steals for his habit. Leandro Andrade and Gary Ewing will be in prison for a long, long time. They may in fact die there. So be it; they have no one to blame but themselves”

I also agree with this statement.

The main purpose of prisons has been to punish people and to keep them away from society. The sentence of the court gives the length of time people have to stay in prison. They may be released early on parole or they may get time off for good behaviour. Since almost all prisoners come back into society, efforts have been made to help them with their problems, to rehabilitate them so that they can become better citizens. This is difficult to do in prisons because life there is very different from life outside. Once prisoners are again free, they need help to live a normal life. Organizations such as the Elizabeth Fry Society or the John Howard Society try to do that. It can be very discouraging for former prisoners to find a place to live, to find work, and to find friends among people who do not trust an "ex-con."
Many people who know about prisons say that they are schools for crime and produce more criminal behaviour. In spite of many reform efforts, prisons serve mainly as a warning and a threat not to commit crimes. They do little for prisoners and thus for the society to which they return. They are also very expensive. It costs on the average more than $45 000 to keep someone in prison for a year.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=J1SEC625218

So let me say it one more time, I don’t agree with 25year sentences for habitual misdemeanor offenders. I don’t agree with 25year sentences for habitual minor felony offenders. I do agree with 25year sentences for habitual serious and violent felony offenders.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

I didn't read all this... Omg you guys like to biotch...

But here's my take on the 3 strikes laws: The communites in which the law exist pushed for the bill that became the law. The courts are stuck with them.

Why did the mass of people push the law into place? Probably because they were sic and tired of repeat offenders.

Have those people asked for a repeal of the law because it seems so harsh on people who commit crimes? Well... if they haven't I'd break the law somewhere else if I was you.

 

[RZAL]

I didn't read all this... Omg you guys like to biotch...

But here's my take on the 3 strikes laws: The communites in which the law exist pushed for the bill that became the law. The courts are stuck with them.

Why did the mass of people push the law into place? Probably because they were sic and tired of repeat offenders.

Have those people asked for a repeal of the law because it seems so harsh on people who commit crimes? Well... if they haven't I'd break the law somewhere else if I was you.

Yea, we covered that a few pages back.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Yea, we covered that a few pages back.

LOL well than I got my 2 cents in...

Can you give me the summary of what the answer was to the peoples desire to establish laws in their own communites?

I take it that those opposed to the peoples laws classifed them as wackos.

 

[RZAL]

LOL well than I got my 2 cents in...
Can you give me the summary of what the answer was to the peoples desire to establish laws in their own communites?
I take it that those opposed to the peoples laws classifed them as wackos.

Do you mean those who oppose other peoples laws? Any way here was my take on it

Idon’t know a thing about California law and don’t care too, as you can see the above the article is even ridiculing their state law.

You should care; California law is the main focus of this discussion. I don't have a huge problem with the 3 strike law if it talks about violent crime; however, California uses any felony for their 3 strike system.

I’m not a resident of California, therefore the legislators are not held responsible to me. If the citizens of California wanted to change this law they can, either through their elected officials or through a referendum. Evidently they agree with this law, so I don’t have any grounds or invested interest to object.

 

[No Limit]

Sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday; I was out of it.

1 Count of drug possession, let’s say its misdemeanor for sake of argument.
1 Count of possession of cocaine, let’s say its misdemeanor for sake of argument
2 Counts of burglary, let’s say its misdemeanor for sake of argument.

Then I would say 25 years is a little stiff. Now for sake of argument lets say he was charged with:

1 Count of felony drug possession.
1 Count of felony possession of cocaine.
2 Counts of felony 1st degree burglary.

But why does it make a difference if it is a felony or if it is a misdemeanor. I believe all cocaine possesion is felony drug possession; never a misdemeanor. Same goes for burglary. So even if what he did was minor it would still be a felony.

Then I would say 25 years fits the crime.

But I also asked you why. Why does that fit the crime when 25 years fits the crime for murder.

The main purpose of prisons has been to punish people and to keep them away from society. The sentence of the court gives the length of time people have to stay in prison. They may be released early on parole or they may get time off for good behaviour.

No parole, no good behaviour when it comes to the 3 strikes law.

Since almost all prisoners come back into society, efforts have been made to help them with their problems, to rehabilitate them so that they can become better citizens. This is difficult to do in prisons because life there is very different from life outside. Once prisoners are again free, they need help to live a normal life. Organizations such as the Elizabeth Fry Society or the John Howard Society try to do that. It can be very discouraging for former prisoners to find a place to live, to find work, and to find friends among people who do not trust an "ex-con."

You know damn well prison doesn't reform anyone. In the record you posted I don't see a rehab program anywhere in there.

 

[AzzMan]

I think it's BS, there's murderers and rapists who get less time than that. I think both of those crimes should carry a mandatory life sentence. There was a kid down here who got sentenced to a mandatory 35 years for that "repeat offender" crap. Minor stuff like petty theft. Meanwhile the real criminals like murderers and child molesters are still getting off early and doing the same sh1t over again. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a coke addict living next door than a pedophile....

 

[burner69]

Sorry to just jump in, I haven't read all the previous posts, but 3 strikes idea is BS. Let me explain:

The idea that committing three crimes, which on their own do not carry particularly long sentences, should mean 25 imprisonment is just a way of showing how the current system is not working, or being respected.
If a person is repeatedly offending there is a reason for this; if it's burglary chances are the guy hasn't been able to hold a job because of the forst conviction, and so has to resort to crime. In the case of drugs... well... I've gotta tread carefully here *stares at mods* but people have and will always take drugs, whether they've been locked up or not. Either through personal choice or addiction, many people will continue to take after a sentence.

The idea that because we have a system that means once you've been locked up once you're basically branded and f**ked for life when it comes to jobs is undoubtably gonna create criminals; we all need jobs, and if that isn't a possibility because of a past record then people will steal - perhaps even turn to drugs to help them cope.

I'm not saying I know all the answers, but what I do know is this notion of locking em up for good when the system hasn't helped them, y'know, keep them out of the way, is just BS.

By the way.. OT, why did RZAL get banned???!?!?!? I'll miss him

 

[Rupertvdb]

agree with the above ^

The concept of 3 strikes is moronic, to have 3 minor convictions before serious jail time is a joke. It is basically a confession of complacent community services and rehabilitation programmes coupled with a total lack of comprehension of what drives drives people to crime. Escpecially when drugs are involved.

I cannot believe it is still practiced.

 

[bliink]

By the way.. OT, why did RZAL get banned???!?!?!? I'll miss him

He had clone accounts. (+ his behaviour didnt do him any favours)

 

[burner69]

He had clone accounts. (+ his behaviour didnt do him any favours)

Hmm, that's a shame, he was a nice guy to have a debate with I thought. Such is life.

On topic:
Rupert, I agree with your agreeing with me (obviously). To just throw people away is to say we have no idea how to help them, so they must be kept out of the way. Of course 25 years in prison will make them model citizens, will give them great job prospects, help them adjust to civilian life, and certainly remove any inclination to ingest illegal substances.

 

[Calanen]

I've got no problem with 3 strikes laws. Making one mistake, or even two...I can believe but 3? So these people pray on the rest of society.

I know what its like to have nothing. And be hungry. And not be able to get a job because the economy fell apart. But I never stole from anyone, or committed any crime.

So I have no sympathy for people who commit crimes. 3 strikes seems like a lot of chances, when the overwhelming majority of people, never break the law ever.

But there is a groundswell of euroliberal and distorted values - saying that people who pull weapons on police if shot were 'murdered' by police, that if police chase auto thieves and the auto thieves crash their car and die, its the fault of the police. Just nuts. Would not have even been contemplated 50 years ago. The cops dont care anymore, and hell why would they? This attitude is far more widespread in Europe and Australia than in the USA, but does get a surprising amount of airplay there too. In San Diego, a homeless dude was throwing cinder blocks at cars from an overpass. The cops pulled up under the overpass and he threw cinder blocks at them, so som1 shot him. And there was an outcry about how the cops should have shot him the big toe, or put a net underneath him or whatever. Protect the right of the homeless guy throwing cinder blocks at passing cars.........until its your wife or mother who is killed because the cinder block comes through her windscreen on her way home from work. Then its, 'the cops do nothing!'

So lock em away. Ive got no problem with that. Im tired of having my car stolen, my house broken into, being bashed in the street and robbed. Ive worked hard my whole life, and have to keep replacing things that bastards like these steal from me. So let em go to jail. And stay there.