3 ms·

The problem of ill-informed lenient sentencing decisions was already dealt with by mandatory minimum sentences. The 3-strikes laws serve a different purpose. T

by burfog 8y ago

The problem of ill-informed lenient sentencing decisions was already dealt with by mandatory minimum sentences. The 3-strikes laws serve a different purpose. The trouble is that some people simply won't get the message that crime is unacceptable. It doesn't matter how long we keep them in prison. Letting them out is like being an accomplice, because they are going to commit that crime. The only solution is to separate these criminals from society.

cwkoss 8y ago
Creating a legal framework for all recreational substances could be another solution.
danso 8y ago
They are the same purpose and the same thing. 3-strikes is by its very definition a mandatory minimum sentencing guideline. Moreover, not every kind of felony has a mandatory minimum statute, whereas a broad range of serious crimes could qualify as part of 3-strikes sentencing. It's true that some criminals may be irredeemable. The ideal is that only these criminals face the punishment intended by 3-strikes, the reality is that otherwise rehabilitatable criminals might be unduly punished. For example, prosecutors can use the statute to pressure a defendant to plead guilty or testify as state's witness, with no ability for judges to act as a check on sentencing if the defendant goes to trial and loses. And of course, there are the criminals who get life in prison for minor, usually drug-related crimes [0]. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-92042/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-an... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/california-horror-stories-and-the-3-strikes-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/california...
srmatto 8y ago
That's simply not true. Our criminal justice system isn't aimed towards reform, not really. It's aligned with a puritanical sense of punishment.
- burfog 8y ago
  It can be many things at once. 1. It can reform. This is often officially implied by names that contain the word "corrections". 2. It can satisfy victims who would otherwise enact their own idea of justice. 3. It can be a deterrent for others. 4. It can be a deterrent for that same person, if later released. 5. It can protect society by making the attackers be dead or physically contained in cages, and thus away from society. It's hard to rape kids when you are all alone in a concrete box. 6. It can fulfill a religious duty. You seem to think that numbers 2 and 6 are all we get out of the deal. This is not the case. We get all of the above. With the possible exception of number 6, all of them are beneficial. I'm pretty sure that number 5 is what the American system is mainly about. If you can't behave, you can't be with the rest of us.

by burfog 8y ago

cwkoss 8y ago

Creating a legal framework for all recreational substances could be another solution.

danso 8y ago

They are the same purpose and the same thing. 3-strikes is by its very definition a mandatory minimum sentencing guideline. Moreover, not every kind of felony has a mandatory minimum statute, whereas a broad range of serious crimes could qualify as part of 3-strikes sentencing. It's true that some criminals may be irredeemable. The ideal is that only these criminals face the punishment intended by 3-strikes, the reality is that otherwise rehabilitatable criminals might be unduly punished. For example, prosecutors can use the statute to pressure a defendant to plead guilty or testify as state's witness, with no ability for judges to act as a check on sentencing if the defendant goes to trial and loses. And of course, there are the criminals who get life in prison for minor, usually drug-related crimes [0]. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-92042/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-an... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/california-horror-stories-and-the-3-strikes-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/california...

srmatto 8y ago

That's simply not true. Our criminal justice system isn't aimed towards reform, not really. It's aligned with a puritanical sense of punishment.

burfog 8y ago
It can be many things at once. 1. It can reform. This is often officially implied by names that contain the word "corrections". 2. It can satisfy victims who would otherwise enact their own idea of justice. 3. It can be a deterrent for others. 4. It can be a deterrent for that same person, if later released. 5. It can protect society by making the attackers be dead or physically contained in cages, and thus away from society. It's hard to rape kids when you are all alone in a concrete box. 6. It can fulfill a religious duty. You seem to think that numbers 2 and 6 are all we get out of the deal. This is not the case. We get all of the above. With the possible exception of number 6, all of them are beneficial. I'm pretty sure that number 5 is what the American system is mainly about. If you can't behave, you can't be with the rest of us.