6 ms·

The Three Strikes law is one reason. How many people can we actually have in jail/prison for 25 plus years? If someone steals Amazon packages 3 times, should th

The Three Strikes law is one reason. How many people can we actually have in jail/prison for 25 plus years? If someone steals Amazon packages 3 times, should they get 25+ years?

geraldwhen 3y ago
Yes
- pessimizer 3y ago
  At $50K/yr, that's 1.25MM that society gets to pay to punish the theft of $950*3 worth of Amazon packages. The insignificant fear of losing an Amazon package makes unbelievably comfortable people absolutely hysterical. It's got to be performative, it can't be real.
  - a2l3aQ 3y ago
    That person is likely already a net drain on the system in many ways, I'd guess 50K is less than the cost of their actions + welfare over the year.
  - bufio 3y ago
    I think people are more concerned about the brazen displays of antisocial behaviour.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Do you at least understand the opposite position, that not spending this money to deter antisocial behavior will result in it becoming widespread, and a greater net loss than this?
carom 3y ago
At some point, yes. They are aren't playing by society's rules (committing three felonies) and should be removed. If you have two felonies, perhaps don't rob trains? Most three strike laws have to do with violent crime though.
- adrr 3y ago
  Two violent felonies and the third strike is any felony.
  - ls612 3y ago
    Sounds OK to me don’t commit violent felonies.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      Don’t get caught* committing violent felonies. Harsh consequences don’t actually prevent the offense. There’s an equally important chance of being caught.
      - nostromo 3y ago
        > Harsh consequences don’t actually prevent the offense But they do protect the public.
        mulmen 3y ago
        Do they? There’s an overwhelming amount of unprosecuted petty crime in my city perpetrated a handful of known individuals. Harsh penalties protect the public from people who get caught. But that’s no consolation when my gas tank gets drained or a window gets busted out to search an empty backpack.
        Broken_Hippo 3y ago
        They don't even necessarily protect folks from those that get caught. We sit there and put folks in jail or prison for an offense, where we might hold them in solitary for months - and if they aren't, they are in a system where people *assume' they are going to get raped by another inmate (it is a common joke, after all). And then we let them out, put them on probation with a bunch of fees that need paid, a record that makes it difficult to find legal work - especially the sort that will pay bills plus probation - and might exclude them from public housing. And when I say exclude, I mean they might not be able to stay with family for a week if their family lives in public housing. Harsh penalties do not protect the public. Harsh penalties are the result of a system meant to extract misery, sometimes for fairly minor expenses. If we (Americans) cared about protecting the public, we'd house people, feed them, make it so crimes of desperation are fewer. We'd treat folks well in prison, treat pre-trial folks like they are innocent, and focus on integrating folks into society in ways that few would mind a felon for a neighbor.
harles 3y ago
I’d prefer exponential backoff. Double the sentence each time. But given the choice of three strikes or a slap on the wrist, I’d take three strikes enforcement.
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
You can sort of justify a first time offence - say you found a package and you were caught with it before being able to take it to the police. But being caught three times… And while it seems disproportionate, it might motivate others to not risk 25 years in prison for a $100 online order…
- puchatek 3y ago
  > it might motivate... That gut feeling resonates with so many that few care to question it. It just feels right. Problem is, it feels right to the kind of person that habitually weighs the benefits and drawbacks of their actions, is able to reason about consequences and has a good grip on their impulses. Those people would be unlikely to steal Amazon packages even if the sentence was a fine and 30 days of social work because they are usually in a different place in society anyway. (Don't get hung up on exceptions) Those that decide to steal anyway are often those that think they won't get caught. It doesn't matter if they don't sit in prison for 2 years or for 25. I'm sure there are other dynamics at play as well. Unfortunately I can't cite research to support my claims but then neither can you. So I just invite you to consider them.
  - zo1 3y ago
    But those people are the kinds that we don't want anywhere near the good kind, nor anywhere close to our children. Hence why a lot of us feel like they should be, within reason, separated from the rest of us.
    - annoyingnoob 3y ago
      Consider this: https://www.nber.org/reporter/2020number1/benefits-rehabilitative-incarceration https://www.nber.org/reporter/2020number1/benefits-rehabilit... https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab
- annoyingnoob 3y ago
  Except data shows that long sentences do not create deterrence. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/five-things-about-deterrence https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/five-things-about-d...
xvector 3y ago
Absolutely, yes. Theft should not be behavior we encourage as a society.

The Three Strikes law is one reason. How many people can we actually have in jail/prison for 25 plus years? If someone steals Amazon packages 3 times, should they get 25+ years?

geraldwhen 3y ago

Yes

pessimizer 3y ago
At $50K/yr, that's 1.25MM that society gets to pay to punish the theft of $950*3 worth of Amazon packages. The insignificant fear of losing an Amazon package makes unbelievably comfortable people absolutely hysterical. It's got to be performative, it can't be real.
- a2l3aQ 3y ago
  That person is likely already a net drain on the system in many ways, I'd guess 50K is less than the cost of their actions + welfare over the year.
- bufio 3y ago
  I think people are more concerned about the brazen displays of antisocial behaviour.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Do you at least understand the opposite position, that not spending this money to deter antisocial behavior will result in it becoming widespread, and a greater net loss than this?

carom 3y ago

At some point, yes. They are aren't playing by society's rules (committing three felonies) and should be removed. If you have two felonies, perhaps don't rob trains? Most three strike laws have to do with violent crime though.

adrr 3y ago
Two violent felonies and the third strike is any felony.
- ls612 3y ago
  Sounds OK to me don’t commit violent felonies.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    Don’t get caught* committing violent felonies. Harsh consequences don’t actually prevent the offense. There’s an equally important chance of being caught.
    - nostromo 3y ago
      > Harsh consequences don’t actually prevent the offense But they do protect the public.
      - mulmen 3y ago
        Do they? There’s an overwhelming amount of unprosecuted petty crime in my city perpetrated a handful of known individuals. Harsh penalties protect the public from people who get caught. But that’s no consolation when my gas tank gets drained or a window gets busted out to search an empty backpack.
        Broken_Hippo 3y ago
        They don't even necessarily protect folks from those that get caught. We sit there and put folks in jail or prison for an offense, where we might hold them in solitary for months - and if they aren't, they are in a system where people *assume' they are going to get raped by another inmate (it is a common joke, after all). And then we let them out, put them on probation with a bunch of fees that need paid, a record that makes it difficult to find legal work - especially the sort that will pay bills plus probation - and might exclude them from public housing. And when I say exclude, I mean they might not be able to stay with family for a week if their family lives in public housing. Harsh penalties do not protect the public. Harsh penalties are the result of a system meant to extract misery, sometimes for fairly minor expenses. If we (Americans) cared about protecting the public, we'd house people, feed them, make it so crimes of desperation are fewer. We'd treat folks well in prison, treat pre-trial folks like they are innocent, and focus on integrating folks into society in ways that few would mind a felon for a neighbor.

harles 3y ago

I’d prefer exponential backoff. Double the sentence each time. But given the choice of three strikes or a slap on the wrist, I’d take three strikes enforcement.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago

You can sort of justify a first time offence - say you found a package and you were caught with it before being able to take it to the police. But being caught three times… And while it seems disproportionate, it might motivate others to not risk 25 years in prison for a $100 online order…

puchatek 3y ago
> it might motivate... That gut feeling resonates with so many that few care to question it. It just feels right. Problem is, it feels right to the kind of person that habitually weighs the benefits and drawbacks of their actions, is able to reason about consequences and has a good grip on their impulses. Those people would be unlikely to steal Amazon packages even if the sentence was a fine and 30 days of social work because they are usually in a different place in society anyway. (Don't get hung up on exceptions) Those that decide to steal anyway are often those that think they won't get caught. It doesn't matter if they don't sit in prison for 2 years or for 25. I'm sure there are other dynamics at play as well. Unfortunately I can't cite research to support my claims but then neither can you. So I just invite you to consider them.
- zo1 3y ago
  But those people are the kinds that we don't want anywhere near the good kind, nor anywhere close to our children. Hence why a lot of us feel like they should be, within reason, separated from the rest of us.
  - annoyingnoob 3y ago
    Consider this: https://www.nber.org/reporter/2020number1/benefits-rehabilitative-incarceration https://www.nber.org/reporter/2020number1/benefits-rehabilit... https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab
annoyingnoob 3y ago
Except data shows that long sentences do not create deterrence. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/five-things-about-deterrence https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/five-things-about-d...

xvector 3y ago

Absolutely, yes. Theft should not be behavior we encourage as a society.