3 strikes and you are out for 25 years

[No Limit]

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?

 

[WySiWyG]

Too much baseball.

 

[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?

Maybe this law is just one of the contributing factors for lowering the crime rate in America.

When you say petty burglary, what do you mean?

 

[No Limit]

Maybe this law is just one of the contributing factors for lowering the crime rate in America.

When you say petty burglary, what do you mean?

I think they said he stole something from a home. Not a single crime was a violent crime.

Maybe it is lowering crime, I am sure it is. However, you would be amazed to see how much more crime would drop if we just locked everyone up in the bottom 3 percentile income group. Would that be a good solution using your reasoning?

 

[the_lone_wolf]

maybe he should learn his dumb ass some smarts and not do it again?

/sarcasm and intentional grammatical errors

 

[kmack]

When the crime rate is as obscene as it is in the US, don't get excited about it being lowered because it is still absurdly high. People who are happy about this are generally ignorant to how bad crime really is, and they HATE it when you mention "gun control" to help lower crime.

 

[RZAL]

I think they said he stole something from a home. Not a single crime was a violent crime.

Maybe it is lowering crime, I am sure it is.

Why does America have the “3 strikes your out” law?

According to the U.S. Department of Justice Special Report July 1994 Seventy-four percent of murder defendants had a prior criminal record of arrest or conviction for a crime. A substantial percentage of murder victims, 44%, also had a prior criminal record. However, 19% of family murder victims had a prior record, compared to 51% of nonfamily murder victims. Also, 56% of family murder defendants, compared to 77% of other murder defendants, had a prior record.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/mf.txt



According to statistics Canada most homicide victims and accused persons had a criminal record.

Consistent with earlier years, 2 out of every 3 adults accused of homicide in 2003 had a criminal record. Most had been previously convicted of a violent offence, including 5 for homicide. About 4 in 10 youth accused of homicide also had a criminal record.
Slightly more than half (52%) of all adult homicide victims and 15% of youth victims also had a criminal record.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040929/d040929a.htm

However, you would be amazed to see how much more crime would drop if we just locked everyone up in the bottom 3 percentile income group. Would that be a good solution using your reasoning?

Same as above.

 

[No Limit]

According to the U.S. Department of Justice Special Report July 1994 Seventy-four percent of murder defendants had a prior criminal record of arrest or conviction for a crime. A substantial percentage of murder victims, 44%, also had a prior criminal record. However, 19% of family murder victims had a prior record, compared to 51% of nonfamily murder victims. Also, 56% of family murder defendants, compared to 77% of other murder defendants, had a prior record.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/mf.txt

If you look at statistics most violent crime is done by people in the bottom 5 percentile income group; so again I ask you, should they be locked up?

How does minor possesion of cocaine call for 25 years in prison?

 

[RZAL]

If you look at statistics most violent crime is done by people in the bottom 5 percentile income group; so again I ask you, should they be locked up?

Being poor is not a crime, so no you shouldn’t lock them up.

How does minor possesion of cocaine call for 25 years in prison?

Because there is such an extremely high correlation between prior drug arrest/prior charges and violent crimes.

When the crime rate is as obscene as it is in the US, don't get excited about it being lowered because it is still absurdly high. People who are happy about this are generally ignorant to how bad crime really is, and they HATE it when you mention "gun control" to help lower crime.

You mean like when I do this?

Crime in America

More than 30 percent (30.7) of violent crimes were committed with personal weapons such as hands, fists, feet, etc. that includes sticks also.

Perpetrators used firearms in 26.9 percent and knives or cutting instruments in 15.2 percent of violent crimes. So lets, see the FBI says firearms were the 2nd choice of weapon. http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressre...estat102504.htm

Canada’s murder rate is 1.85% homicides for every 100,000 people. A grand total of 582 murders in all of canada ..only 23% were commited with firearms.

United States Guns were used 26.9% of the time.
Canada Guns were used only 23% of the time.

Canada’s crime rate for 2003

962.8 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants
4,121.4 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants

America’s crime rate for 2003

475.0 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants
3,588.4 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants


Percentage change from 1994/2003

-33.4 Violent crime, -36.7 Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, -18.2 Forcible rape, -40.2 Robbery, -31.0 Assault, -23.0 Property crime, -28.9 Burglary, -20.2 Larceny, -26.7 Motor vehicle theft.

Contributing circumstances for lowering crime rate: Adopted new laws “3 strikes your out” and CCW.

Maybe Canada should consider carry concealed weapon permits, after all the United States reduced their over all crime rate by approx. –31% over the last 10 years.

 

[No Limit]

Being poor is not a crime, so no you shouldn’t lock them up.

Nor is being addicted to drugs a crime that should get you locked up for a life sentence.

Because there is such an extremely high correlation between prior drug arrest/prior charges and violent crimes.

Again, there is a huge correlation between poor people and crime; doesn't mean all of them need to be locked up.

Look at the following site:

http://www.facts1.com/ThreeStrikes/Stories/

So all of those people should be serving 25 years in prison?

 

[No Limit]

Lets play this statistic game:

California had 3,703 in 1994 (the year 3 strikes law was started). In 1996 it had 2,916 murders. Clearly a drop, yes.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm

However, lets look at the incarceration rate:

In 1994 the rate was 384 for every 100,000 people; in 1996 it was 451. I couldn't find the total number of incarcerations so if anyone has that please post it. Using the Census 2002 figure California has 35,484,453 people. 35,484,453 / 100,000 = 354. So if you multiply 354 by the rate you get:

1994: 136,260 incarcerations
1996: 159,654 incarcerations

Keep in mind this is a very low ball figure as I am using census information from 2002 which will have a higher population.

That means that even if you stop those 760 or so murders you throw away about 25,000 people each year that have nothing to do with it. Is this worth it? And rememeber, this is 20,000 lives thrown away just in California; 39 other states have similar laws.

 

[RZAL]

Nor is being addicted to drugs a crime that should get you locked up for a life sentence.

Show me a crime in the United States where it is illegal to be addicted to drugs and carries a life sentence.

Again, there is a huge correlation between poor people and crime; doesn't mean all of them need to be locked up.

Being poor is not a crime in the United States, that idea came from the senile old man known as Europe.

As you pointed out this person had a history of criminal activity, 2 counts of burglary, drug possession and possession of cocaine. Sounds like he should have learned his lesson years ago. He got the 25 years for being a complete idiot, For breaking the law.

Lets play this statistic game:

California had 3,703 in 1994 (the year 3 strikes law was started). In 1996 it had 2,916 murders. Clearly a drop, yes.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm

However, lets look at the incarceration rate:

In 1994 the rate was 384 for every 100,000 people; in 1996 it was 451. I couldn't find the total number of incarcerations so if anyone has that please post it. Using the Census 2002 figure California has 35,484,453 people. 35,484,453 / 100,000 = 354. So if you multiply 354 by the rate you get:

1994: 136,260
1996: 159,654

Keep in mind this is a very low ball figure as I am using census information from 2002 which will have a higher population.

That means that even if you stop those 760 or so murders you throw away about 20,000 people each year that have nothing to do with it. Is this worth it?

Ah, ok here is the link I posted on another thread. I think you will find the stats are much more accurate and creditable, knock yourself out.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm

 

[Gray Fox]

With crminals, they usually start petty crimes and go on to do some more serious crimes, furtherore if they guy refuses to learn from his mistakes he should pay the price.
Offcourse this is all asuming he was giving the chance to better up his life, which I doubt in the rightwing american system was the case.

 

[No Limit]

Show me a crime in the United States where it is illegal to be addicted to drugs and carries a life sentence.

Are you shitting me? My entire post was about a guy that got 25 years for minor possession of cocaine.

As you pointed out this person had a history of criminal activity, 2 counts of burglary, drug possession and possession of cocaine. Sounds like he should have learned his lesson years ago. He got the 25 years for being a complete idiot, For breaking the law.

I would love to see how you would feel if someone in your family got 25 years for cocaine possession. Yes, I gurantee you that you have someone close to you that does drugs and you don't even know about it.

Ah, ok here is the link I posted on another thread. I think you will find the stats are much more accurate and creditable, knock yourself out.

Post the statistics you are talking about, I'm not sure what that had to do with anything.

With crminals, they usually start petty crimes and go on to do some more serious crimes, furtherore if they guy refuses to learn from his mistakes he should pay the price.
Offcourse this is all asuming he was giving the chance to better up his life, which I doubt in the rightwing american system was the case.

He didn't do any crime after he was caught the second time. The problem is that drugs are addicting and you can't just stop. So yes, his only crime was being addicted to drugs. RZAL seems to think he should be in prison for a life sentence for this 'crime'.

 

[No Limit]

Also, review the stories at http://www.facts1.com/ThreeStrikes/Stories/ and tell me that each of those people should be in prison for 25 years; I didn't post that link just to take up bandwidth.

 

[RZAL]

http://www.facts1.com/ThreeStrikes/Stories/

So all of those people should be serving 25 years in prison?

No Limit, I’m not joking, please, please, please!!! Don’t use that sight to base your argument on. Every idiot I checked out had a least two prior residential burglary convictions. The truth is most of these people should still be doing time for the crimes they committed. I think a stronger argument would be the state released them without rehabilitation, not these poor fools got 25 years for striking out.

 

[No Limit]

No Limit, I’m not joking, please, please, please!!! Don’t use that sight to base your argument on. Every idiot I checked out had a least two prior residential burglary convictions. The truth is most of these people should still be doing time for the crimes they committed. I think a stronger argument would be the state released them without rehabilitation, not these poor fools got 25 years for striking out.

So you are telling me that you don't believe that many people are arrested for life sentences because of non violent crimes?

The truth is those people should be doing that kind of time? You are honestly telling me possesion of cocaine should be punished by 25 years?

 

[No Limit]

Also, I just love people that say a source isn't truthful when it goes against their point. On the first result of that page is Rene Landa, here is an LA Times article that mentions that person:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l...ory?coll=la-home-headlines&ctrack=2&cset=true

Among those likely to be freed early if Proposition 66 passed would be Rene Landa, who was sentenced in 1995 to 27 years to life for stealing a spare tire. Landa had two previous convictions for residential burglary, both of which might no longer be counted as strikes under a revised law. Since Landa has served far more time than he would have gotten without the three-strikes law, he would likely be released immediately.

So you still think this site isn't truthful?

 

[The Dark Elf]

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?

I think its a good idea, obviously he hasn't learnt his lesson, if he doesn't like it, tough luck. He knew what would happen.

 

[No Limit]

I think its a good idea, obviously he hasn't learnt his lesson, if he doesn't like it, tough luck. He knew what would happen.

Let me guess, you are the type of person that deeply believes you don't have anyone close to you that has drug problems?

Sure he knew it would happen. However, you can't just say oh, I'm going to stop doing drugs today because of it. Drugs have way too tight of a grip on a person and I know that you have people in your life facing this problem. I'm sure if they got locked up for 25 years this wouldn't be a case of "tough luck" anymore.

 

[RZAL]

So you are telling me that you don't believe that many people are arrested for life sentences because of non violent crimes?

The truth is those people should be doing that kind of time? You are honestly telling me possesion of cocaine should be punished by 25 years?

Yes I’m saying they should do the time for the crime they were convicted of. Lets see, residential burglary is a felony in all fifty states and I would dare to say the minimum and maximum penalty for each count would be in the neighborhood of 10 to 15 years.

Why does America have the “3 strikes your out” law?

According to the U.S. Department of Justice Special Report July 1994 Seventy-four percent of murder defendants had a prior criminal record of arrest or conviction for a crime. A substantial percentage of murder victims, 44%, also had a prior criminal record. However, 19% of family murder victims had a prior record, compared to 51% of nonfamily murder victims. Also, 56% of family murder defendants, compared to 77% of other murder defendants, had a prior record. ?

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/mf.txt

Seventy-four percent of murder defendants had a prior criminal record of arrest or conviction for a crime. These people just don’t learn, they make their own rules and in the end people die.

According to statistics Canada most homicide victims and accused persons had a criminal record.

Consistent with earlier years, 2 out of every 3 adults accused of homicide in 2003 had a criminal record. Most had been previously convicted of a violent offence, including 5 for homicide. About 4 in 10 youth accused of homicide also had a criminal record.
Slightly more than half (52%) of all adult homicide victims and 15% of youth victims also had a criminal record.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040929/d040929a.htm

2 out of every 3 adults accused of homicide in 2003 had a criminal record..

These people just don’t learn, they make their own rules and in the end people die. These are the cold hard facts, not the fuzzy warm little criminals as everyone wants us to believe.

 

[No Limit]

Seventy-four percent of murder defendants had a prior criminal record of arrest or conviction for a crime. These people just don’t learn, they make their own rules and in the end people die.

So every person arrested for 3 strikes was going to commit a murder? THe statistics I posted prove otherwise and say as many as 20,000 people get locked up for every 1,000 muders you stop. You still haven't answered me, are those 20,000 lives thrown away worth it?

 

[CptStern]

yes but how long before it's abused ...a friend of a friend of a friend has been arrested 2 times and charged with spousal abuse ...he swears he's never touched her, that she just uses that as an excuse to get back at him ...if he's telling the truth and he was living in a 3 strikes and you're out state he'd be well on his way to serving a life sentence for something he didnt do


also how many of those that get sent up the river was for simple possession that in any other country would probably get him a fine or charges would be dropped?

 

[No Limit]

I also love how you are trying to side step my questions. First you say that the site I posted with examples of how unjust this law is not truthful. I show you it is so you ignore it completely. Are the cases listed on that site worth a life sentence in prison?

 

[No Limit]

also how many of those that get sent up the river was for simple possession that in any other country would probably get him a fine or charges would be dropped?

Well this is the main problem. In the example I posted he would have gotten at most probation for a few months. Instead he got 25 years to life in prison because it was his 3rd strike. I can't believe how cold hearted people can be in defending this unjust law.

 

[The Dark Elf]

Let me guess, you are the type of person that deeply believes you don't have anyone close to you that has drug problems?

Whats that got to do with anything?

 

[RZAL]

So every person arrested for 3 strikes was going to commit a murder? THe statistics I posted prove otherwise and say as many as 20,000 people get locked up for every 1,000 muders you stop. You still haven't answered me, are those 20,000 lives thrown away worth it?

What I am saying is, if everyone of those people would have served the time they were originally given on their prior convictions, they wouldn’t have been out of jail to get convicted of a “three strikes your out law”…..Now would they……..Why because they would still be in prison doing time for the crimes they had already commented.

 

[CptStern]

I can't believe how cold hearted people can be in defending this unjust law.

after seeing how indifferent people were to the deaths of 500 k iraqi children, I'm not really all that surprised

 

[SidewinderX]

No Limit: It sounds like you're arguing that crime is alright, as long as it's non violent. Is that what you believe?

I don't see a problem with sending someone to jail if they've been convicted 3 times... that tells me that they aren't going to stop commiting crimes, so we might as well get them off the streets.

 

[kirovman]

It sounds a bit ultra-conservative, or even draconian.

And going to jail like that for such time lengths...their drugs problems are only going to get worse. They will be exposed to the hard-core criminals and drugs peddlars.
When they finally get out in 25 years they are going to commit worse crimes. But hey, that's for the next generation to worry about, right?

Jail for 25 years...that's about 30% of a lifetime, probably more since they have a low life expectancy. Why not give them the death sentance instead?

I believe in crime that prevention is better than cure.
Try fixing you education system, your welfare system and try to prevent poverty. If you ignore the lower catagory of your population, that's when crime erupts.

 

[No Limit]

Whats that got to do with anything?

It has everything to do with it. The people for this law think everyone around them is an angel with no real life problems. However, when an injustice like this kicks someone you love directly in the balls it suddenly doesn't become a case of "oh well, tough luck".

No Limit: It sounds like you're arguing that crime is alright, as long as it's non violent. Is that what you believe?

No crime is right. The problem is he would have gotten at most probation for his offense; he got 25 to life instead because of 3 strikes. You can't honestly tell me this is ok.

I don't see a problem with sending someone to jail if they've been convicted 3 times... that tells me that they aren't going to stop commiting crimes, so we might as well get them off the streets.

That seems to be the easiest solution to a huge problem; just throw these people out and don't worry about it no matter who gets hurt in the process (as long as it isn't you).

 

[No Limit]

No Limit: It sounds like you're arguing that crime is alright, as long as it's non violent. Is that what you believe?

I don't see a problem with sending someone to jail if they've been convicted 3 times... that tells me that they aren't going to stop commiting crimes, so we might as well get them off the streets.

Also, tell me; why isn't it ok to take away someones driving license for life if they are caught speeding 3 times in their enitre life? Clearly they did it 3 times so they won't stop. Oh I know, because then it becomes something everyone might be subject to; not just the poor non-white people.

 

[RZAL]

yes but how long before it's abused ...a friend of a friend of a friend has been arrested 2 times and charged with spousal abuse ...he swears he's never touched her, that she just uses that as an excuse to get back at him ...if he's telling the truth and he was living in a 3 strikes and you're out state he'd be well on his way to serving a life sentence for something he didnt do
also how many of those that get sent up the river was for simple possession that in any other country would probably get him a fine or charges would be dropped?

There will always be the chance for abuse, however from what I can tell the “3 strikes your out law” only pertains to serious felony convictions. It targets the felonious habitual offender not the small time misdemeanor and infraction “oh I made a mistake offender”.

The first state to enact a "3-strikes law" was the state of Washington (effective 12/2/93) and then California followed shortly after (3/7/94). Since then, there have been about 35 states identified with established "strikes" laws in the United States.
The vast majority of states have enacted "strikes" laws that provide that all strikes must be "serious" or "violent."
California, however, being proud to be different, a trendsetter and pushed by the emotional Polly Klaas case, enacted a much broader statute such that "any felony" can be used for the triggering third offense. Also, the broadness of the California statute includes a minimum of 25 years-to-life, juvenile adjudications of 16 and 17 year-olds, and provides for no "wash-out" period (a time period disallowing sufficiently stale prior strikes). In addition, the California statute was made "discretionary" for judges only by a California Supreme Court decision (but the same Supreme Court has laid out standards whereby trial courts have been held to abuse their discretion). http://www.facts1.com/states/states.htm

Also, tell me; why isn't it ok to take away someones driving license for life if they are caught speeding 3 times in their enitre life? Clearly they did it 3 times so they won't stop. Oh I know, because then it becomes something everyone might be subject to; not just the poor non-white people.

Driving in the United States is a privilege not a right and yes depending on the state and the circumstances you can loose your drivers license for speeding on the first account. I don’t see how this is relevant to our discussion. Oh I see you’re trying to make this a poor man rich man issue.

 

[No Limit]

There will always be the chance for abuse, however from what I can tell the “3 strikes your out law” only pertains to serious felony convictions. It targets the felonious habitual offender not the small time misdemeanor and infraction “oh I made a mistake offender”.

So doing drugs is a serious felony conviction? Taking a home decoration from someone's back yard is a serious felony conviction? Stealing a car radio is a serious felony conviction? Damn, I didn't know you having to fill out an insurance form caused you such pain that the guy that did it to you should get life in prison.

Driving in the United States is a privilege not a right and yes depending on the state and the circumstances you can loose your drivers license for speeding on the first account. I don’t see how this is relevant to our discussion. Oh I see you’re trying to make this a poor man rich man issue.

It is relevent. Most people in this country get many more than 3 speeding tickets in their life time. By your reasoning if they get a ticket (doesn't matter how big the offense was) 3 times they should never be allowed to drive again. So if I get my license at 18 and I'm stupid and drive 50 in a 40 and get caught 3 times I should never be allowed to drive again. Same thing if I don't signal 3 times or make an illegal lane change 3 times. This will never happen as it would affect white people in this country and there would be a huge outrage.

The reason you people can brush this off as "oh well, tough luck" is because you can't associate with these people who are non white in most cases. As soon as something like this would be applied to something you participate in there would be a huge outrage on your part (like driving for example). This is why this applies here and it shows the hypocracy of this law and the hypocracy on your part for defending this law.

 

[CptStern]

There will always be the chance for abuse, however from what I can tell the “3 strikes your out law” only pertains to serious felony convictions. It targets the felonious habitual offender not the small time misdemeanor and infraction “oh I made a mistake offender”.

well I'm not all that familiar with the law around it, but I did watch a documentary on pbs where a 21 year old "mentally challenged" (he had a low IQ but he wasnt "special needs") receive 25 yrs in jail because he had been caught with 3 grams of pot ...which would probably be laughed at anywhere else ...his first 2 crimes were B and E's that he had committed when he was 18 ...the kicker was that when he was arrested, it was under strange circumstances ...someone saw a black man stealing a women's purse, a few passerbys thought that a black man standing nearby was an accomplice ..a fight ensued he was arrested and received 25 years because he had pot on him and was involved in a violent (contrary to his parole)

 

[No Limit]

well I'm not all that familiar with the law around it, but I did watch a documentary on pbs where a 21 year old "mentally challenged" (he had a low IQ but he wasnt "special needs") receive 25 yrs in jail because he had been caught with 3 grams of pot ...which would probably be laughed at anywhere else ...his first 2 crimes were B and E's that he had committed when he was 18 ...the kicker was that when he was arrested, it was under strange circumstances ...someone saw a black man stealing a women's purse, a few passerbys thought that a black man standing nearby was an accomplice ..a fight ensued he was arrested and received 25 years because he had pot on him and was involved in a violent (contrary to his parole)

I'm not sure how Canda's laws are set up so let me explain slightly how this works. Here in the states you have 2 categories of crimes felony and misdemeanor. This has sub categories like 1st degree felony; however, that doesn't apply in this case. For possesion of an ounce of pot you would get a misdemeanor and usually just a ticket; for possesion of over an ounce you would get a felony. Some other things you can get a felony for:

suspended license
possession of a class A (I believe it is class a) drug such as cocaine
Filing A False Claim (a MVD form with false information as an example)
Receiving or concealing stolen property
Burglary

If you do any of the 3 above crimes in your life time by this 3 strikes law you will get 25 to life in prison. None of the above really hurt any one while some people get out in 10 years for homicide. How the hell does this make sense; if you are defending this law explain this to me.

 

[CptStern]

I'm just relating what I watched on pbs ...the case was heard in california ..so again, I have to plead ignorance of that particular states laws, but I know what I saw ..he received a life's sentence for simple possession and assualt

 

[RZAL]

So doing drugs is a serious felony conviction? Taking a home decoration from someone's back yard is a serious felony conviction? Stealing a car radio is a serious felony conviction?
From your article:
This might be a case in some states; I know for a fact it is not the case in California. Any 3 felony convictions will send you away for 25 to life. .

No Limit read the article and then follow up by searching the individual state laws which are listed in the article.

The vast majority of states have enacted "strikes" laws that provide that all strikes must be "serious" or "violent." California, however, being proud to be different, a trendsetter and pushed by the emotional Polly Klaas case, enacted a much broader statute such that "any felony" can be used for the triggering third offense. Also, the broadness of the California statute includes a minimum of 25 years-to-life, juvenile adjudications of 16 and 17 year-olds, and provides for no "wash-out" period (a time period disallowing sufficiently stale prior strikes). In addition, the California statute was made "discretionary" for judges only by a California Supreme Court decision (but the same Supreme Court has laid out standards whereby trial courts have been held to abuse their discretion).{

I don’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.

It is relevent. Most people in this country get many more than 3 speeding tickets in their life time. By your reasoning if they get a ticket (doesn't matter how big the offense was) 3 times they should never be allowed to drive again. So if I get my license at 18 and I'm stupid and drive 50 in a 40 and get caught 3 times I should never be allowed to drive again. Same thing if I don't signal 3 times or make an illegal lane change 3 times. This will never happen as it would affect white people in this country and there would be a huge outrage.

Where did I say that? No Limit, there is a huge difference in driving 10 MPH over the speed limit and felonious possession of cocaine or a felonious burglary or being a habitual felon. I honestly can’t believe you even trying to argue this point.

The reason you people can brush this off as "oh well, tough luck" is because you can't associate with these people who are non white in most cases. As soon as something like this would be applied to something you participate in there would be a huge outrage on your part (like driving for example). This is why this applies here.

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

well I'm not all that familiar with the law around it, but I did watch a documentary on pbs where a 21 year old "mentally challenged" (he had a low IQ but he wasnt "special needs") receive 25 yrs in jail because he had been caught with 3 grams of pot ...which would probably be laughed at anywhere else ...his first 2 crimes were B and E's that he had committed when he was 18 ...the kicker was that when he was arrested, it was under strange circumstances ...someone saw a black man stealing a women's purse, a few passerbys thought that a black man standing nearby was an accomplice ..a fight ensued he was arrested and received 25 years because he had pot on him and was involved in a violent (contrary to his parole)

I’m not doubting you, I have observed many injustices in my life time. I support the theory behind the law because I believe it’s a “just” law. The two B&E crimes more than likely were felonious, which carries a minimum to maximum sentence throughout most of the states somewhere between 10-15 years each. If he had served time for even one of these crimes, he would not have been in the position to be arrested on an unrelated felony 3 years down the road. Another argument would be he chose to commit these acts (considering he is not mentally challenged) and should have learned from his mistakes. He lucked out on the first two crimes, but justice came on the 3rd strike.

 

[No Limit]

I don’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.

Where did I say that? No Limit, there is a huge difference in driving 10 MPH over the speed limit and felonious possession of cocaine or a felonious burglary or being a habitual felon. I honestly can’t believe you even trying to argue this point.

It is only different because you have an understanding of speeding since you do it on a daily basis. If you lived with these people who have been spit on by society you would have an understanding for why they use drugs and why they commit petty burglary. If you look at statistics it can be easily argued that speeding kills similarly to cocaine. So why are you not for taking away licenses for life for anyone that has been caught with a speeding violation 3 times in their life? Because this would directly affect you and it wouldn't be a case of "oh well, tough luck, I shouldn't have been speeding in the first place". Also, I am not saying it is as bad as cocaine use; I clearly never said they should be locked up. I simply applied your logic of if they do it 3 times they will always do it to speeding tickets so after 3 times you should not be allowed to drive ever again (notice I am not talking about prison). But again, you are against this because applying your logic in this case would affect you too much.

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

Your race doesn't have anything to do with it. I am making a point that this law mostly applies to black and hispanic males:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/strk20.shtml

If this was something that affected everyone (including people close to you) there would be an outrage over this.

So stop doging my points and only quoting what you wish to quote. Why is it right to have someone in jail for 10 years on homicide while this guy is serving 25 to life for cocaine possesion? Why is it right to throw someone in jail and throw away the key for a crime that originally would only give you probation?

 

[RZAL]

I'm just relating what I watched on pbs ...the case was heard in california ..so again, I have to plead ignorance of that particular states laws, but I know what I saw ..he received a life's sentence for simple possession and assualt

It would be helpful if we had a little more info on this case…think you can find anything on it?

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.

California law didn’t become an issue until I pointed out the article. The primarily focus was on the 3 strike law and nothing else.

It is only different because you have an understanding of speeding since you do it on a daily basis. If you lived with these people who have been spit on by society you would have an understanding for why they use drugs and why they commit petty burglary.

Trust me I have a far better understanding than you.

If you look at statistics it can be easily argued that speeding kills similarly to cocaine. So why are you not for taking away licenses for life for anyone that has been caught with a speeding violation 3 times in their life? Because this would directly affect you and it wouldn't be a case of "oh well, tough luck, I shouldn't have been speeding in the first place". Also, I am not saying it is as bad as cocaine use; I clearly never said they should be locked up. I simply applied your logic of if they do it 3 times they will always do it to speeding tickets so after 3 times you should not be allowed to drive ever again (notice I am not talking about prison). But again, you are against this because applying your logic in this case would affect you too much.

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.

Your race doesn't have anything to do with it. I am making a point that this law mostly applies to black and hispanic males:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/strk20.shtml
If this was something that affected everyone (including people close to you) there would be an outrage over this.

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

The reason you people can brush this off as "oh well, tough luck" is because you can't associate with these people who are non white in most cases. As soon as something like this would be applied to something you participate in there would be a huge outrage on your part (like driving for example). This is why this applies here and it shows the hypocracy of this law and the hypocracy on your part for defending this law.

Lets see “You People” “can't associate with these people who are non white”

So stop doging my points and only quoting what you wish to quote. Why is it right to have someone in jail for 10 years on homicide while this guy is serving 25 to life for cocaine possesion? Why is it right to throw someone in jail and throw away the key for a crime that originally would only give you probation?

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.

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.

It has everything to do with it. The people for this law think everyone around them is an angel with no real life problems. However, when an injustice like this kicks someone you love directly in the balls it suddenly doesn't become a case of "oh well, tough luck".

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. Just remember life isn’t supposed to be this way, hang in there and make a difference.