6 ms·
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 tr
by 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 agoTwo violent felonies and the third strike is any felony.
- ls612 3y agoSounds OK to me don’t commit violent felonies.
- mulmen 3y agoDon’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 agoDo 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 agoThey 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.
- ponector 3y agoConsequences are not harsh if criminals are not caught. The issue is in the lack of enforcement. Punishment for any crime should be inevitable. But proportional to the type of the crime.
- mulmen 3y agoRight. A lack of enforcement can’t be counterbalanced by harsh sentencing.
- networkchad 3y ago[dead]
- annoyingnoob 3y agoWho gets hurt? Would you consider this train robber a danger to society? 25+ years is way out of proportion for the offense. Long sentences as a form of deterrence are not as effective as things like the likelihood of getting caught. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/five-things-about-deterrence https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/five-things-about-d... Incarceration without rehabilitation does not solve the underlying problems and leads to recidivism. Ruining someone's life over a few Amazon packages makes no sense, ethically or financially.
- Georgelemental 3y ago> Who gets hurt? Would you consider this train robber a danger to society? By unjustly appropriating the fruits of other people's labor, thieves make it harder for all honest citizens to support themselves and their families financially. Of course they are a danger to society, and only someone in a position of extreme financial privilege could possibly think otherwise.
- mulmen 3y agoSure, theft is bad. The question is how do we disincentivize it. Risk = punishment * probably of being caught. If the probability of being caught is low then the risk can be justified. If the probability of being caught (and successfully prosecuted) is 1 then even short sentences become effective.
- anigbrowl 3y agoGreat, lets starting by jailing everyone who commits wage and hour theft, which exceeds the cost of all theft and robberies combined, but which gets little news coverage because it doesn't have dramatic video footage. IT's logical to start with the biggest thieves, no?
- ExoticPearTree 3y agoSo why doesn’t it happen considering there is ample evidence of this?
- Dylan16807 3y agoIf they keep doing crimes you can lock them up again, you know. Very few crimes should be able to get you more than 5 years at once.
- mulmen 3y agoI agree with you but I’m honestly curious why you say 5 years. It seems like overkill for what is basically a reset on life. Anything over a few weeks means you lose your job. Anything over a few months means you lose your residence. So what’s the difference between one year and five? What do you lose in those four years other than opportunity?
- mulmen 3y agoWhy three? Because baseball? It seems so arbitrary. Recidivism is a real issue but what’s so magical about three strikes? Why not five, or one, or 47?
- oliv__ 3y agoOne can be a mistake. Two is recidivism, it's bad but we can give you another chance. Three: you blew it. Do not pass go, go directly to jail
- mulmen 3y agoGo directly to jail. Like… Monopoly? It still feels arbitrary to me. If two is recidivism then so is three right? So is three be life? That doesn’t seem right. Shouldn’t we be trying to minimize recidivism?
- philwelch 3y agoIf you wanted to minimize recidivism you’d have a life sentence for every crime.
- concordDance 3y agoI think the idea is that a "good" person can still have a (small) rate of criminality. If you kill after one crime you'll kill many good people, if you do so after 2 you'll still kill good people. But the odds of a good person committing 3 crimes are low enough to go for it.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoProperty crime is predominantly driven by poverty / wealth inequality. I'd like to see you, with a conviction for a nonviolent drug crime and no college degree or tech experience, try to get a job and provide for a family. The "rules" of the US are intensely stacked against poor people while allowing the wealthy to almost fail upward.
- ExoticPearTree 3y agoDo you have a solution for this? And consider tyat being poor that does make it ok to steal. It wouldn’t be that hard to stop emoloyers from asking if you served time and do background checks for this. In theory, you did your time, you’ve paid your debt to society. I feel like, at leastbin the US, you’re pretty much screwed if you were ever convicted of anything.
- DiggyJohnson 3y agoI would re-up my forklift cert and go do construction. This would be difficult work, but would keep you gainfully employed with a roof over your head almost anywhere in the United States. It would not be hard to find a job in construction even with a drug offense and no degree.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nobody9999 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? It's been argued[0] that most of us don't commit three felonies in a lifetime, but three felonies a day. While that may be somewhat hyperbolic, it also points up something important about our society. If I were you, I wouldn't be so excited about sticking "three time losers" in prison for decades. It could be you -- for what you did yesterday. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a-day https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a...
- philwelch 3y agoPeople don’t typically get “three strikes” sentences for committing obscure white collar federal felonies. They get them for felonies that people are generally aware of, like armed robbery and domestic violence.