Supreme Court Upholds 'Three-Strikes' Law

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: 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."

That's the main problem right there. No one ever uses common sense in these areas because they don't wan't to look soft on crime. If they ever go back on a previously passed crime law, it can be assured that their political opponents will say they're soft on crime and then promise to lock more of these criminals up. It's always easier to appeal to people's fear and lust for revenge than it is to appeal to their intelligence and compassion. No matter how many times the ineffectiveness and lunacy and certain laws are exposed, very few politicians will ever act to do anything but make the sentences longer and the jails bigger.

 

[Ornery]

• Oh no, please stop! You bleeding hearts are breaking my heart! 🙁

 

[Infos]

Nicely summed up: yowolabi 😉

 

[Ornery]

• • 

Oh yes, thank you SO much for your intelligence and compassion!

 

[deftron]

Originally posted by: Ornery

• • 

Oh yes, thank you SO much for your intelligence and compassion!

Do you not understand the difference between violent criminals and and those who have commited relatively minor crimes?

Guess you else has three strikes under his belt ?

Our precious President, George W. Bush
His criminal record includes:
1.Theft at a hotel
2. Disoderly conduct at a football game
3 Drunk dirving

During his election campaign, it was discovered that he used cocaine before.


And you think the guy in the article deserves life for a Heroin possession charge and stealing video tapes twice?
I suppose he may become a murderer

Guess who's about to murder thousands of Iraqis anydays now...

 

[Ornery]

Your "understanding and compassion" not only saddle us all with rapists and murders after short sentences, but we're also stuck with the petty thieves and burglars, over and over and over again. We finally fvcking got tired of it! They cut their own throats. Sucks to be them!

 

[tcsenter]

The courts do not translate the Consitution verbatim.

Of course they do, unless there is some compelling evidence in the historical record which suggests that our current understand of words used in the Constitution is no longer approximate with the framer's understanding of the terms when they used it. Otherwise, fine still means fine.

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"

You're now using metaphors. The framer's didn't write the constitution in metaphors. The Bible deals in metaphors, but neither the law nor the constitution deal in metaphors.

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

Nope, sorry, it wasn't.

Can you provide any evidence outside of your own personal conjecture and speculation that when the framers wrote fine, they meant any legal sanction or liability whatsoever levied against another as punishment, penalty, or compensation for wrongs, including incarceration and/or imprisonment?

Something else neither the law nor the constitution deal in...personal conjecture and speculation.

Its important to note that expecting the Supreme Court to observe its own limitations, no matter how tempting, is not the same as agreeing with the three strikes law or any punishments metered under it.

It is simply acknowledging that it is not within the purview of the Supreme Court to second guess or question the wisdom of public policy or the authority of the legislature to determine it just because some members of the Court don't like it. That's not what courts are for, regardless of how many liberal activist Justices think otherwise. If you don't like the law, change it.

If the people of California were truly 'mislead', it shouldn't be difficult at all to find the support to overturn the law.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: deftron
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"

Where does it say excessive sentencing, though? It does not.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: apoppin

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:

Christians do not cheer when a soul is sent to Hell. Hell, we don't really know when someone is going to Hell. It is not for us to judge. That duty belongs to God, and I believe that he does not like sending souls to Hell for all eternity.

Believe in Him or not, that is your choice. I believe He exists. And that is all that really matters. 🙂

Flame on.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Infos
"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."

At sometime in their life, everyone is a murderer, rapist and thief?

 

[Tom]

I think the 3 strikes laws are solving the wrong problem. What I would do instead is to give longer sentences for the first strike and especially the second strike than we currently do, but keep some sense of proportion between the crime and the punishment.

There are lots of crimes where I think giving someone 3 chances is way too many.

 

[Mill]

The Three Strikes Law IS constitutional. It is, however, a very stupid law because of how it was enacted. If it only applied to violent crime or serious felonies it would be great. It doesn't so we are left with even more disproportionate sentencing. Disproportionate sentencing does NOT reduce crime.

 

[Ornery]

Can somebody tell me this? Say your car stereo gets stolen. A cop catches the theif red handed. What kind of penalty does this SOB face? Honestly, I want to know. Do you know how much of a hassle it is to have your car or house ransacked? Yet, what is this scum really going to face IF caught? The idea that they're somehow entitled to your stuff pisses me off TREMENDOUSLY! :|

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Can somebody tell me this? Say your car stereo gets stolen. A cop catches the theif red handed. What kind of penalty does this SOB face? Honestly, I want to know. Do you know how much of a hassle it is to have your car or house ransacked? Yet, what is this scum really going to face IF caught? The idea that they're somehow entitled to your stuff pisses me off TREMENDOUSLY! :|

They are not entitled to your stuff. I would guess they would get a sentence of less than one year or probation. It needs to be a mandatory year.

 

[tcsenter]

The Three Strikes Law IS constitutional. It is, however, a very stupid law because of how it was enacted. If it only applied to violent crime or serious felonies it would be great. It doesn't so we are left with even more disproportionate sentencing. Disproportionate sentencing does NOT reduce crime.

It certainly reduces the crimes which would have otherwise been committed by that individual had he been free on the streets. Sometimes, many times, its not about "reducing crime", its about keeping people off of the streets and out of society so they cannot continue to commit crime. In that respect, crime has certainly been reduced.

How many crimes do you think these two dolts would have committed in the 25 - 50 year period they will be in prison? Dozens, if not hundreds, lest we believe this was their last criminal act, honest it was, trust me, and they have been 'reformed'.

 

[Dudd]

The Three Strikes law is stupid, imo. Instead of allowing judges to use their own judgement in determining appropriate sentencing, it makes everything into a black and white situation, and while it works in some situations, in others it is inappropriate. If I were king for a day, I'd clear out our jails of all the non-violent drug criminals, and then use that space to house people who have committed actual crimes. Let the little crack whore kill herself, and instead of spending our money housing her in the state pen, put the guy who ripped off your car in there for a year instead of probation. Right now though, our justice system is a series of knee jerk reactions that do little to punish actual crimes and much to punish victimless crimes.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Ornery
I advocate violent criminals suffering the same fate as their victims. That's justice!

So petty criminals should have something stolen from them 3 times?

 

[dahunan]

We should start disciplining or punishing the school aged criminals more seriously then maybe they won't grow up like they do.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Ornery
Can somebody tell me this? Say your car stereo gets stolen. A cop catches the thief red handed. What kind of penalty does this SOB face? Honestly, I want to know. Do you know how much of a hassle it is to have your car or house ransacked? Yet, what is this scum really going to face IF caught? The idea that they're somehow entitled to your stuff pisses me off TREMENDOUSLY! :|

They are not entitled to your stuff. I would guess they would get a sentence of less than one year or probation. It needs to be a mandatory year.

I know they're not entitled, but WTF else could be going through their mind? "Oh look, somebody left their car unlocked, guess they won't mind me taking these CDs and stuff."

Probation, eh? You're stuck with several hundred dollars worth of damage or missing merchandise, that you may or may not have insurance to cover, and they get probation. Hmmm, do these cocksuckers even have to try and reimburse you in any way? Can you sue their sorry asses?

Damn! You walk out of your house and find your car on blocks with the wheels gone, and the only consequences these asswipes were risking is probation? You're going to have a REAL hard time making me feel sorry for these third strike "victims". I hope the fvckers rot wherever they end up! :|

 

[TallBill]

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? Until these 3 strikes laws are reformed and defined better, I cannot agree with them, especally given the above situation (which does happen)

Im sorry, but if someone is dumb enough to get arrested for the same damn thing 5 times, they deserve a life sentance. If they honestly had that big of a problem you'd think they would seek help after one or two arrests.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: Ornery
Can somebody tell me this? Say your car stereo gets stolen. A cop catches the thief red handed. What kind of penalty does this SOB face? Honestly, I want to know. Do you know how much of a hassle it is to have your car or house ransacked? Yet, what is this scum really going to face IF caught? The idea that they're somehow entitled to your stuff pisses me off TREMENDOUSLY! :|

They are not entitled to your stuff. I would guess they would get a sentence of less than one year or probation. It needs to be a mandatory year.

I know they're not entitled, but WTF else could be going through their mind? "Oh look, somebody left their car unlocked, guess they won't mind me taking these CDs and stuff."

Probation, eh? You're stuck with several hundred dollars worth of damage or missing merchandise, that you may or may not have insurance to cover, and they get probation. Hmmm, do these cocksuckers even have to try and reimburse you in any way? Can you sue their sorry asses?

Damn! You walk out of your house and find your car on blocks with the wheels gone, and the only consequences these asswipes were risking is probation? You're going to have a REAL hard time making me feel sorry for these third strike "victims". I hope the fvckers rot wherever they end up! :|

You're really pushing the "no-profanity rule" here, Ornery. 😛

It looks like you are playing the embittered victim here. Why don't we just execute people who steal from you? Would that satisfy your twisted sense of "justice"? 😛

 

[Ornery]

If you could tell me what penalty they're actually facing, I might be swayed. I have a feeling it does amount to no more than a slap on the wrist, which is truly twisted in my book! I want them to suffer all right... at LEAST as much as the victim. Why would that be a problem for you?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ornery
If you could tell me what penalty they're actually facing, I might be swayed. I have a feeling it does amount to no more than a slap on the wrist, which is truly twisted in my book! I want them to suffer all right... at LEAST as much as the victim. Why would that be a problem for you?

The penalty they are "facing" is much stiffer than what they will "get" in a plea-bargain.

The courts are extremely overcrowded and "deals' are struck to give a lighter sentance in exchange for a plea instead of a trial. Of course its "wrong" - but that's the way it works (or doesn't).

This "3 strikes" law is a "band-aid" solution that was supposed to address violent repeat offenders. Instead, it takes "discretion" away from judges.

My solution. End the stupid war on drugs - especially marijuana - and free up court resources.

 

[Ornery]

"End the stupid war on drugs - especially marijuana - and free up court resources."

Amen to that!

So, if you're lucky enough to have them arrested, (and how often does that happen,) he still doesn't face much of a penalty, while you're stuck with the bills and mess. Is it any wonder why it's come to this?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"End the stupid war on drugs - especially marijuana - and free up court resources."

Amen to that!

So, if you're lucky enough to have them arrested, (and how often does that happen,) he still doesn't face much of a penalty, while you're stuck with the bills and mess. Is it any wonder why it's come to this?

I am not surprised people are angry and bitter and want to be "tough" on crime. However, do not confuse the "3 strikes" law with being tough on crime - it is not - it is tough on people (when there are far better and more cost-effective solutions). 😉


EDIT: When you actually look at the "criminals" sentenced under this law, you realize there is a disproportionate amount of poor and minorities that actually get put away for non-violent crimes.