-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Are you guys for or against a strict 3 strikes law...
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Just like driving drunk and/or speeding.
Then, by suggesting that most robbers and shoplifters use drugs, you draw a (perhaps direct) relationship between drug use and those two crimes. This seems to invalidate your original statement of:
Even a middle or high income worker that engages in a bit of peripheral (illegal) drug consumption, is, on some level, supporting the criminal infrastructure necessary to provide those drugs.
Of course, this line of thought could also be used to assign some level of responsibility to gun manufacturers, for murders perpetuated with their products.
I'm afraid that there aren't easy answers to questions like this, for the North American society and culture, which is getting more and more diverse, with each passing day.
Pliablemoose
Lifer
Agree with waggy, some felonies are BS.
The reason the three strike laws came about is because judges were too creative with the sentences, so now we have 3 strike laws & mandatory minimum sentences.
The reason the three strike laws came about is because judges were too creative with the sentences, so now we have 3 strike laws & mandatory minimum sentences.
dimensionOFdissension
Member
The true criminals are running the show.
Only those without criminal vision, or with black skin, are locked up.
The rest are hired as CEOs for Fortune 500 companies, run for Congress or are appointed to the President's cabinet.
Only those without criminal vision, or with black skin, are locked up.
The rest are hired as CEOs for Fortune 500 companies, run for Congress or are appointed to the President's cabinet.
mercanucaribe
Banned
Corporate crime costs the country more money than robberies and burglaries.
I thought it was for violent crimes not any felony? A DUI is a felony, and while I don't condone drinking and driving, there is the potential that someone blows the legal limit (.08) and gets a felony, but was not in a position to hurt anyone. I don't believe three DUI's should be a life sentence...
I think such laws are unjust and probably (in the USA) unconstitutional. It takes away the ability for the judge to determine an appropriate sentence for the given situation- so you get ludicrous situations like a judge being forced to give someone a life sentence for shoplifting. There is no meaningful relationship between the severity of crime and severity of punishment and therefore these laws are an affront to justice. These kinds of laws are promoted by politicians who want to win votes the easy way, by proposing feelgood solutions to crime which do nothing to improve the crime situation but suck in gullible, stupid voters (such as the people in this thread who support these laws).
thecrecarc
Diamond Member
I HATE IT
it should be lower....
it should be lower....
These kinds of laws are promoted by politicians who want to win votes the easy way, by proposing stupid solutions to crime which really don't improve the situation...
:roll:
...it was affirmed by more than 70 percent of the state's voters.
Uelmen, who continues to oppose the law, concedes: "In terms of taking violent people off the streets, I think it's had some effectiveness."
:roll:
...it was affirmed by more than 70 percent of the state's voters.
Uelmen, who continues to oppose the law, concedes: "In terms of taking violent people off the streets, I think it's had some effectiveness."
Does Three Strikes Deter? A Non-Parametric Estimation
- We take advantage of the fortuitous randomization of trials to provide a novel
strategy to identify the deterrent effect exclusive of incapacitation. The identification
strategy allows us to estimate the deterrent effect non-parametrically using data solely
from the three-strikes era. We find that California?s three strike legislation significantly
reduces felony arrests rates among the class of criminals with 1 strike by 29 to 48
percent, depending on the precise model, and among the class of criminals with 2 strikes
by 12.5 percent.
<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20020913-060859-2341r">Study: 3-strikes laws increase homicides
</a>
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 (UPI) -- "Three-strikes" sentencing laws actually increase homicide rates, a study by University of Alabama criminologists shows.
Although it might seem that such "tough-on-crime" legislation would increase public safety, the opposite has been found to be true. Felons who calculate they will receive the same punishment for murder as they would for having a third strike, kill their victims to avoid detection and police officers to avoid apprehension.
Many police organizations oppose "three-strikes" laws for this reason, said senior author John Sloan III, an associate professor of Justice Studies at the Birmingham campus.
The article "Unintended Consequences of Politically Popular Sentencing Policy: The Homicide-Promoting Effects of 'Three Strikes' in U.S. Cities (1980-1999)," written with assistant professors Tomislav V. Kovandzic and Lynee M. Vieraitis, appears in the current issue of Criminology & Public Policy.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, policy makers facing intense public pressure to "do something" about the high rate of violent crime, responded by strengthening laws targeting repeat offenders. Between 1993 and 1996, 25 states and the federal government enacted laws known by the baseball metaphor "three strikes and you're out." These laws generally reduce the discretion of judges by mandating severe prison sentences for third felony convictions.
The authors warn that though this intuitively might seem like effective policy, intuition alone isn't a sound basis for judging what will or won't work, at what cost, and with what side effects.
The Alabama criminologists replicated the results of "The Lethal Effects of Three-Strikes Laws," by Thomas B. Marvell and Carlisle E. Moody, which appeared in the January 2001, issue of the Journal of Legal Studies.
"According to Marvell and Moody ... criminals facing lengthy prison terms upon conviction for a third strike may take steps to reduce the chances of being caught, prosecuted, and convicted by changing their modus operandi," Sloan and his colleagues wrote. "That is, during the commission of an ordinarily non-lethal offense, an offender may decide to kill victims, witnesses or police officers to reduce the chance of apprehension."
Marvell and Moody looked at data by state.
"They found that states with three-strikes laws had significantly higher rates of homicide than states that did not during a roughly comparable period," Sloan told United Press International.
Sloan and his colleagues looked at data by city. They divided the 188 largest U.S. cities, those with populations of 100,000 or more, into two groups -- those in states with three-strikes laws and those in states without such laws.
The researchers then collected data on homicide from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports from 1980 to 1999. These data were collected from time periods both before and after the laws were passed.
"That's to control for any possible trends than might have begun prior to the passage of the laws that could have affected the crime rates afterward," Sloan said.
The criminologists also controlled for seven socio-demographic variables that previous research has shown to be important correlates of homicide: percent of people who are African-American, percent of the population aged 18 to 24, percent of female-headed households, percent of the population living below the poverty line, income inequality, percent of the population living alone, and prison population (a negative correlate).
Additionally, the researchers controlled for a number of crime variables.
"If, for example, robbery was going up, that could cause homicide to go up," Sloan said.
The results obtained by the Alabama criminologists were almost identical to those of Marvell and Moody. During the year in which a three-strikes law was passed (which the authors define as the "short term"), homicide rates increased, on average, by 13 percent to 14 percent. The cumulative effect from 1980 to 1999 (the "long term") was an increase in homicide rates in cities in the three-strikes states from 16 percent to 24 percent.
"These laws not only don't work, they increase homicides," Sloan told UPI.
Sloan said most crime control policy arises from knee-jerk reactions to particularly heinous offenses that, by definition, are not the norm. But because these crimes generate so much attention, pressure is brought to bear on legislators to "do something."
It's politically expedient to impose severe measures rather than looking at other kinds of solutions, the professor said, and too often the costs and unintended consequences of "get-tough" laws are not considered.
</a>
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 (UPI) -- "Three-strikes" sentencing laws actually increase homicide rates, a study by University of Alabama criminologists shows.
Although it might seem that such "tough-on-crime" legislation would increase public safety, the opposite has been found to be true. Felons who calculate they will receive the same punishment for murder as they would for having a third strike, kill their victims to avoid detection and police officers to avoid apprehension.
Many police organizations oppose "three-strikes" laws for this reason, said senior author John Sloan III, an associate professor of Justice Studies at the Birmingham campus.
The article "Unintended Consequences of Politically Popular Sentencing Policy: The Homicide-Promoting Effects of 'Three Strikes' in U.S. Cities (1980-1999)," written with assistant professors Tomislav V. Kovandzic and Lynee M. Vieraitis, appears in the current issue of Criminology & Public Policy.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, policy makers facing intense public pressure to "do something" about the high rate of violent crime, responded by strengthening laws targeting repeat offenders. Between 1993 and 1996, 25 states and the federal government enacted laws known by the baseball metaphor "three strikes and you're out." These laws generally reduce the discretion of judges by mandating severe prison sentences for third felony convictions.
The authors warn that though this intuitively might seem like effective policy, intuition alone isn't a sound basis for judging what will or won't work, at what cost, and with what side effects.
The Alabama criminologists replicated the results of "The Lethal Effects of Three-Strikes Laws," by Thomas B. Marvell and Carlisle E. Moody, which appeared in the January 2001, issue of the Journal of Legal Studies.
"According to Marvell and Moody ... criminals facing lengthy prison terms upon conviction for a third strike may take steps to reduce the chances of being caught, prosecuted, and convicted by changing their modus operandi," Sloan and his colleagues wrote. "That is, during the commission of an ordinarily non-lethal offense, an offender may decide to kill victims, witnesses or police officers to reduce the chance of apprehension."
Marvell and Moody looked at data by state.
"They found that states with three-strikes laws had significantly higher rates of homicide than states that did not during a roughly comparable period," Sloan told United Press International.
Sloan and his colleagues looked at data by city. They divided the 188 largest U.S. cities, those with populations of 100,000 or more, into two groups -- those in states with three-strikes laws and those in states without such laws.
The researchers then collected data on homicide from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports from 1980 to 1999. These data were collected from time periods both before and after the laws were passed.
"That's to control for any possible trends than might have begun prior to the passage of the laws that could have affected the crime rates afterward," Sloan said.
The criminologists also controlled for seven socio-demographic variables that previous research has shown to be important correlates of homicide: percent of people who are African-American, percent of the population aged 18 to 24, percent of female-headed households, percent of the population living below the poverty line, income inequality, percent of the population living alone, and prison population (a negative correlate).
Additionally, the researchers controlled for a number of crime variables.
"If, for example, robbery was going up, that could cause homicide to go up," Sloan said.
The results obtained by the Alabama criminologists were almost identical to those of Marvell and Moody. During the year in which a three-strikes law was passed (which the authors define as the "short term"), homicide rates increased, on average, by 13 percent to 14 percent. The cumulative effect from 1980 to 1999 (the "long term") was an increase in homicide rates in cities in the three-strikes states from 16 percent to 24 percent.
"These laws not only don't work, they increase homicides," Sloan told UPI.
Sloan said most crime control policy arises from knee-jerk reactions to particularly heinous offenses that, by definition, are not the norm. But because these crimes generate so much attention, pressure is brought to bear on legislators to "do something."
It's politically expedient to impose severe measures rather than looking at other kinds of solutions, the professor said, and too often the costs and unintended consequences of "get-tough" laws are not considered.
It would be more appropriate to think of the sentence, or the extra part of the sentence, as given for the three crimes rather than for the last one.
I agree that there should be such a relationship. You could have laws which gave extra sentences for committing three crimes, and varied the extra sentences depending on the severity of the crimes.
That is sofaking retarded. The penalty for rape, and especially child rape is also severe, with the same outcome. Rather than face those severe penalties, rapists and pedophiles kill the victims of their "ordinarily non-lethal offense", rather than risk facing those penalties. Guess we should just give 'em a slap on the wrist instead, eh? :roll:
California's "Three Strikes" Law--No Laughing Matter
California's "Three Strikes" Law--No Laughing Matter
- Numbers don't lie and they are plain to see. A review of the California crime index from 1993â??the year prior to the passage of "three strikes"â??to 2003 shows a dramatic drop in violent crime. In 1993, California had 4,095 homicides, 11,754 forcible rapes, and 126,347 robberies. In 2003, the state had 2,402 homicides, 9,918 forcible rapes, and 63,597 robberies. According to a May 2004 article in the San Francisco Chronicle: "Factoring in population growth, California's crime rate has dropped by more than 40 percent since three strikes passed, double the national rate of decline."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
