Supreme Court Upholds 'Three-Strikes' Law

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
*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.

I'm not sure if he was performing an act of community service with that action or not. Would have made a compelling argument in front of a judge.

 

[Infos]

Another bit of wisdom from the Supreme Idiots :disgust:


Anybody that supports this draconian legislation 🙁 shows what an ininformed
piece of pond scum protoplasm they are :|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|......
you truly deserve to have your internet privileges revoked :disgust::disgust::disgust:
Do some reading and get informed you moronic idiots

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
*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.

I'm not sure if he was performing an act of community service with that action or not. Would have made a compelling argument in front of a judge.

Yeah, it could be a good shot at an insanity plea...

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Infos
Another bit of wisdom from the Supreme Idiots :disgust:


Anybody that supports this draconian legislation 🙁 shows what an ininformed
piece of pond scum protoplasm they are :|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|......
you truly deserve to have your internet privileges revoked :disgust::disgust::disgust:
Do some reading and get informed you moronic idiots

• :| Read this , fvcktard! :|

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Infos
Another bit of wisdom from the Supreme Idiots :disgust:


Anybody that supports this draconian legislation 🙁 shows what an ininformed
piece of pond scum protoplasm they are :|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|......
you truly deserve to have your internet privileges revoked :disgust::disgust::disgust:
Do some reading and get informed you moronic idiots

You used more smileys than text. If you are going to make a convincing argument, please do so. If you are going to draw pictures and call names, you aren't going to convince anyone of much of anything.

Please explain why incorrigible, repeat criminal offenders should be continually slapped on the wrist and dropped back into society. Is it some sort of "right-to-work" notion for career criminals?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Jzero
Please explain why incorrigible, repeat criminal offenders should be continually slapped on the wrist and dropped back into society. Is it some sort of "right-to-work" notion for career criminals?

All three strikes should be felonies. The notion that writing a bad check "becomes" a felony is what is wrong with the legislation.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Infos
Another bit of wisdom from the Supreme Idiots :disgust:


Anybody that supports this draconian legislation 🙁 shows what an ininformed
piece of pond scum protoplasm they are :|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|......
you truly deserve to have your internet privileges revoked :disgust::disgust::disgust:
Do some reading and get informed you moronic idiots

Gee, I'm convinced. I was wavering on the validity and usefulness of this law before but your insightful rebuttal to proponents of the law have undoubtedly changed my point of view. Thanks, it's good to know that I've already achieved something valubale today; I'll take the rest of the day off.

 

[Infos]

I was expressing my feelings on this matter.
I meant what I said.
You are totally clueless if you support this legislation.
(and I guarantee I have been robbed more times than you punks that support this legislation-
I lived in Fl. for over 20 years)

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Infos
I was expressing my feelings on this matter.
I meant what I said.
You are totally clueless if you support this legislation.
(and I guarantee I have been robbed more times than you punks that support this legislation-
I lived in Fl. for over 20 years)

I think that your feelings on the matter would be treated with a higher level of respect if you used logic and reason in your argument other than "because I said so".

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Infos
I was expressing my feelings on this matter.
I meant what I said.
You are totally clueless if you support this legislation.

"You're stupid" will win precious few converts.

 

[Ornery]

• Boo-hoo, I feel so bad for these poor criminals. 🙁

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Infos
I was expressing my feelings on this matter.
I meant what I said.
You are totally clueless if you support this legislation.
(and I guarantee I have been robbed more times than you punks that support this legislation-
I lived in Fl. for over 20 years)

More name calling, but still not an answer to the question:
Please explain why incorrigible, repeat criminal offenders should be continually slapped on the wrist and dropped back into society. Is it some sort of "right-to-work" notion for career criminals?

Thanks to NightTrain, who makes a good point. I disagree because I don't think a misdemeanor "becomes" a felony. Courts often take past offences into account when handing down sentences. I see the law as overriding the "recommended" sentence, but not actually changing the status of the crime.
I do see your point, though. If the line between felony and misdemeanor is hard and fast, then this concept destroys that line.

 

[Nitemare]

They need to get rid of the 3 strikes rules. It is totally unfair.

They need to just execute all murderers, "proven" rapists and other vermin

Lock the rest of criminals in stocks on the courthouse steps.

Crime would be at an all time low, plus we could do away with most prison personnel..just one to patrol the stocks periodically and make sure noone was trying to kill one of the prisoners or trying to free them.

 

[Pepsei]

I prefer having them in exile on some island with shark infested water. They'll have to get their own food and water. What a show.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Infos
I was expressing my feelings on this matter.
I meant what I said.
You are totally clueless if you support this legislation.
(and I guarantee I have been robbed more times than you punks that support this legislation-
I lived in Fl. for over 20 years)

Well, I was expressing my view on this matter and you're unbelievably clueless if you think someone will change their view based upon your unsupported position. And I can guarantee that I've been involved in more violent criminal incidents than a punk like you. I've lived in L.A. for 20 years, 10 in Venice Beach, and followed that by a brief stay in Mexico City, definately not one of the wonder capitals of the world.

 

[Ornery]

"I have been robbed more times than you punks..."

What an ass. Some people would rather find a solution to this sh|t, than put up with it. God, that's dense!

 

[apoppin]

As USUAL the Supreme Court is deeply divided - 5-4.

"Almost half" of the top justices think the 3 Strikes law is UNconsitiutional.

"Politics" are playing in this decision. 😛

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) said the Ewing case is a rare example of a sentence that is so out of proportion to the crime that it is unconstitutional. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), David Souter (news - web sites) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites).


Outside California's three-stikes law, a 25-year prison term is more the norm for someone convicted of first-degree murder, not shoplifting, Breyer wrote.


"Ewing's sentence is, at a minimum, two to three times the length of sentences that other jurisdictions would impose in similar circumstances," he wrote.


Breyer read a summary of his dissent from the bench, a step justices usually reserve for cases in which there is strong, often ideological, disagreement.


At least 7,000 people have been sentenced under the California law, including more than 300 such as Ewing and Leandro Andrade, the men at the heart of Wednesday's cases. Both received long sentences when the courts treated a relatively minor crime as a third-strike felony.

 

[Ornery]

"Politics" are playing in this decision..."

...and the criminals lose. God, that just so sucks! 😀

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"Politics" are playing in this decision..."

...and the criminals lose. God, that just so sucks! 😀

In your cold opinion. 😛 And not only the criminals lose - so do the honest taxpayers who have to pay for the incarceration of these people - this VENGEFUL and stupid law (as it stands) - never thought of "rehabilation" as a cost-effective way to treat PETTY criminals.

You have the same self-righteous attitude of the "christians" who cheer when a sinner is "sent to hell (to be tortured FOREVER by you "loving god"). :disgust:

 

[Jzero]

this VENGEFUL and stupid law (as it stands) - never thought of "rehabilation" as a cost-effective way to treat PETTY criminals.

The thought of "rehabilitation" is what allowed Terry Drake to get out of prison after 15 years. If after the 2nd time you haven't reformed, why would anyone believe that you will ever reform?

You have the same self-righteous attitude of the "christians" who cheer when a sinner is "sent to hell (to be tortured FOREVER by you "loving god"). :disgust:

Riiiiiight. Back to the subject at hand....

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Ornery
"Politics" are playing in this decision..."

...and the criminals lose. God, that just so sucks! 😀

In your cold opinion. 😛 And not only the criminals lose - so do the honest taxpayers who have to pay for the incarceration of these people - this VENGEFUL and stupid law (as it stands) - never thought of "rehabilation" as a cost-effective way to treat PETTY criminals.

You have the same self-righteous attitude of the "christians" who cheer when a sinner is "sent to hell (to be tortured FOREVER by you "loving god"). :disgust:

What about the cost to honest taxpayers who have to increasingly pay for additional law enforcement and police protection because the courts do not impose meaningful sentences and the penal system has become a school for career criminals? Rehabilitation only works if there is incentive to be rehabilitated.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Blame the voters of California for passing the Three Strikes initiative.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
*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.

😉

 

[Infos]

They've done surveys of the Ca voters and they found that just like
some in this thread, they didn't know what it entailed.
Even politicians who admit this is wrong won't support legislation to amend it
because they don't want to appear soft on crime.
Virtually nothing in this life is black and white, but they legislated it to be so.


"Resolve to be tender with the young,
Compassionate with the sick and the aged,
Sympathetic of the poor,
Tolerant of the weak and the wrong...........
at sometime in your life you will have been all of these things."

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
Blame the voters of California for passing the Three Strikes initiative.

It was MISrepresented to the California voters.

What about the "other things" the Cali voters voted for and the Feds are blocking (hint: compassionate marijuana medical initiative)?

And we are talking about 3 strikes law applied to PETTY criminals as it was NEVER originally intended - HOWEVER it is very effective for "career felons (read: "VIOLENT criminals" - there is a "difference"). ;roll;