• 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.

Supreme Court Upholds 'Three-Strikes' Law

D

deftron

Lifer
Link



I think this law may be a little excessive and borderline cruel and unusual punishment.

Someone got 50 years for shoplifting videotapes ?

The story doesn't say what his other convictions were for, but there should at least be
some kind of requirement that the person has repeatedly commited violent crimes in order to
punish him for more than the standard sentence for each crime.




 
Time and time again, the Supreme Court has shot down the absurd notion that "cruel and unusual punishment" can mean anything other than cruel and unusual treatment; stockades, drawing and quartering, physical or psychological torture, beatings, shackling, forced hard labor, etc.

Lengthy prison sentences, even if deemed 'harsh' or disproportionate to the nature of the crime, are not what the framers meant by cruel and unusual punishment. It is not within the purview of the court to question or second guess the legislature or the will of the people in this regard. This is a political question, not a legal question. The court was wise to defer to the will of the people exercised through their elected representives.

What were these 'poor downtrodden souls' stealing; bread, milk, eggs, apples, baby formula, diapers? Nope, videos and golf clubs.

What part about 'do not commit three felonies' is so god damned difficult to understand?
 
And also, the whole admenment says no excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment.

If you dont think the sentence is cruel and unusual punishment, you could argue it falls under "excessive fines"


 
Excessive? no i dont think so. Its not like the punishments should suprise the criminals. Im sure it is fairly well known in the state of California. If you think a punishment is excessive, dont commit the crime. I have no problem with the law, as I wont be shoplifting even once.
 
And also, the whole admenment says no excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment.

If you dont think the sentence is cruel and unusual punishment, you could argue it falls under "excessive fines"
Click to expand...
Oh boy. How much better the world would be if people would only pay attention in school.

WHEN HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN THE WORD "FINE" WRT A LEGAL SANCTION BEING USED TO DENOTE ANYTHING BUT AN ECONOMIC OR MONETARY PENALTY?
 
Originally posted by: tcsenter
And also, the whole admenment says no excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment.

If you dont think the sentence is cruel and unusual punishment, you could argue it falls under "excessive fines"
Click to expand...
Oh boy. How much better the world would be if people would only pay attention in school.

WHEN HAVE YOU EVER KNOWN THE WORD "FINE" WRT A LEGAL SANCTION BEING USED TO DENOTE ANYTHING BUT AN ECONOMIC OR MONETARY PENALTY?
Click to expand...

The courts do not translate the Consitution verbatim.

Also, fine could be used as any method of reconcilliation to repay a debt imposed as punishment for an offense

Have you ever heard the phrase "He paid his debt to society" meaning "He did his time"

In the 1700's the word "fine" may have been used more loosely and meant the same as "sentence" or
"punishment "

 
Stealing videotapes? - Threeeee times - they clearly qualify for the death penalty. Hang'em in the streets that should teach mob how to behave ....


 
Successful rehabilitation of a murderer... - Viper GTS 03/06/2003
  • I was just reading in the paper today about third strike criminals facing "too harsh" penalties:

    Supreme Court Affirms Stringent 'Three Strikes' Law
    • The rulings were bad news for Gary A. Ewing, the golf-club thief who will not be eligible for parole consideration for 25 years, and for Leandro Andrade, who is to languish behind bars for 50 years as the result of his latest transgression: taking videotapes from Kmart stores on two occasions.
    God, that breaks my heart!
    rolleye.gif


    And when it comes to violent criminals, an eye for an eye is getting off easy! :disgust:
 
Originally posted by: Ornery
Successful rehabilitation of a murderer... - Viper GTS 03/06/2003
  • I was just reading in the paper today about third strike criminals facing "too harsh" penalties:

    Supreme Court Affirms Stringent 'Three Strikes' Law
    • The rulings were bad news for Gary A. Ewing, the golf-club thief who will not be eligible for parole consideration for 25 years, and for Leandro Andrade, who is to languish behind bars for 50 years as the result of his latest transgression: taking videotapes from Kmart stores on two occasions.
    God, that breaks my heart!
    rolleye.gif


    And when it comes to violent criminals, an eye for an eye is getting off easy! :disgust:
Click to expand...

Like I said.. violent criminals I can see this being used on...

But for petty theives? Is it really worth the tax payers money to hold someone in prison their whole life
(probably a few $100,000 ) just for stealing videotapes ?


 
Three Strikes is perfect for petty criminals who won't reform. Your hard earned money and goods are merely theirs for the picking. :disgust:

I advocate violent criminals suffering the same fate as their victims. That's justice!
 
You don't like it, don't steal.
rolleye.gif



Now, granted, some of these people have a sickness and stealing is like an addiction, but, really 3 chances seems fair to me. How many times you think they stole and did NOT get caught. I bet a lot.
 
I for one think the 3 strikes laws are too harsh in petty cases like this one mentioned. I mean, 50 years? How old do these people think humans can live to? 50 years is over 1/2 the life span of a normal non-smoking American male and/or female...... 50 years is a very very very very very very very very very very very very long time.
 
The three strikes law is meant to address repeat offenders of felony convictions. The law basically says that repeat felony offenders are a bane to society and should be incarcerated. I agree with that view. Repeat felony offenders exhibit a pronounced inability to interact within the confines lawful society and should be removed from the streets. The real failure in this is the courts and the penal system which repeatedly allow criminals reduced sentences and time spent in an institution which does nothing other than put them in a box with others of their kind. Sentences should be harsh to begin with and life in prison should be spent in almost a state of slavery. That would certainly cut down on the repeat criminal activity.

If these people realized that by avoiding work and the rules of society earned them a stint in a slave labor camp, they might be more inclined to get along once they reach the outside again. I also believe in rehabilitation but it is meaningless when not backed up by serious consequences.
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
first two were violent, so 3rd didnt matter. the part of the story barely mentioned
Click to expand...

Of course not, it doesn't match the agenda of the writer of the article.

 
This is why I do not agree with 3 strikes laws:

In some states that have said 3 strikes laws, they also have a public intoxication law. The first 2 convictions are misdermeaners, the third, 4th and 5th are felonies. Now, just for being publicly intoxicated, ever though he say, might be an alcoholic, he deserves 50 years in prison or something similar? Until these 3 strikes laws are reformed and defined better, I cannot agree with them, especally given the above situation (which does happen)
 
Originally posted by: deftron
I thought shoplifting was a misdemeanor (?)
Click to expand...

Depends on local laws. Some laws have a price-limit on what is a misdemeanor and what is a felony (grand theft larceny)
 
But for petty theives? Is it really worth the tax payers money to hold someone in prison their whole life
(probably a few $100,000 ) just for stealing videotapes ?
Click to expand...

No, especially since after the third time it's pretty clear that they are either stupid or have a desire to never be free. At this point, we may as well just take them behind the courthouse and shoot them after their third offense and be done with the whole thing. In fact if, I was more supportive of the death penalty, I might advocate this. It's safe to say they have been a burden on society long enough.

You can be convicted once, and maybe you made a mistake or were framed.
You could even be convicted twice, and maybe you're just unlucky, or kinda stupid.
Three times? Give me a break.

The excuse "I got life for stealing a videotape" is thoughtless bullsh!t. You got life because you murdered someone and then you were too stupid to keep your nose clean.
 
*tsk tsk*
Sent to jail, and for what?
Batman Forever? Who steals Batman Forever? I'm not sure I'd accept a copy of that if I was PAID for it.
 
Originally posted by: FallenHero
This is why I do not agree with 3 strikes laws:

In some states that have said 3 strikes laws, they also have a public intoxication law. The first 2 convictions are misdermeaners, the third, 4th and 5th are felonies. Now, just for being publicly intoxicated, ever though he say, might be an alcoholic, he deserves 50 years in prison or something similar?
Click to expand...
Why not? Why should alcoholism be an excuse to repeatedly break the law with no repercussions? Countless alcoholics have cleaned up their acts through cold-turkey, 12-step and other methods. If after the 4th time you got arrested you don't get the message, why should you be shown any mercy? It's ludicrous.
 
Maybe people should consider the consequences of their actions before breaking the law rather than whining about it later. I think it's a great way to deter crime. It may take awhile for the message to get out, but if it's properly and consistantly enforced, then it will drastically help reduce crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top