Three Strike Law

[The Batman]

So for my persuasive essay in english my topic is the Three Strike Law. Pretty much it's saying that if you commit three felonies you get a mandatory 25 to life sentence minimum. That being said there was a guy serving 26 to life for stealing cookies from a restaurant his last two felonies were assualt with a deadly weapon and i think theft. There are thousand other inmates in the california prison system for petty crimes serving life because of the three strike law. How do you feel about it?

[Oblivion]

I'm for it.
In Washington there is also a three strikes law, although it's less harsh than Cali's.

Anyways, I'm for it because after 2 chances, you really should begin to learn. If not, the jail system isn't doing it's job, and it needs to up the time.
Yes, there are silly things, like simple theft, etc. that end up being the third strike, but the first two strikes must be violent or serious felonies.

[Perseus]

Well, if he does armed robbery, then does theft, and decides to steal something else, it works fine because he didn't learn his lesson the first two time apparently.. And, like i said, if it takes you more than two times to realize something is wrong, then you should be put in jail, but not for life, that's extreme...

[theOperaGhost]

That doesn't seem to be correct to me...Stealing a cookie would fall under petty larceny, which is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

As for the three strike law, I find it to be a good thing. Three felonies is a rather huge thing. However three felonies could fall under a minimum of 3 years in prison (one year is the minimum sentence for a felony). Twenty five years seems a bit harsh, when the minimum could be as low as three. I think 10 years would be more fitting. Of course it all depends on the felonies committed.

[Oblivion]

That doesn't seem to be correct to me...Stealing a cookie would fall under petty larceny, which is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

The third strike can be a misdemeanor, it's just the first two that have to be felonies.

[theOperaGhost]

The third strike can be a misdemeanor, it's just the first two that have to be felonies.

I was unaware of that. Thomas simply said three felonies, so that is what I thought.

[nick]

This is a very US specific question so difficult to comment. My gut feeling is that every crime & sentence should be judged on its own merit. If its a first offence the judge may be more lenient, if the person convicted is a repeat offender the judge is likely to be less lenient. Isn't that enough?

No one should be given a 25-life sentence for stealing loaf of bread, even if is a 3rd offence. That would take us back 100 years or more of civilisation

[theOperaGhost]

The third strike can be a misdemeanor, it's just the first two that have to be felonies.

Ok, I did my research, and from what I can find, it says nothing about the third crime being a misdemeanor.

http://www.lawinfo.com/fuseaction/Client.lawarea/categoryid/139[/URL]"]The State of California is noted to have the harshest three-strikes laws. Existing law classifies some felonies, as "violent" or "serious." California’s "three Strikes and you’re out" law mandates that if a person has two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions, the sentence for any additional felony conviction (not just serious or violent) is 25 years to life.

[Oblivion]

Ok, I did my research, and from what I can find, it says nothing about the third crime being a misdemeanor.

Hmm, that was my understanding... But I guess I was wrong :P
That makes me wonder...How those cases are possible?

Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving over $500 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, received double sentence of 25 year-to-life for 2 counts of shoplifting), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years).

In one particularly notorious case, Kevin Weber was sentenced to 26 years to life for the crime of stealing four chocolate chip cookies (previous strikes of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon).[9] However, prosecutors said the six-time parole violator broke into the restaurant to rob the safe after a busy Mother's Day holiday, but he triggered the alarm system before he could do it. When arrested, his pockets were full of cookies he had taken from the restaurant.[10]

[theOperaGhost]

Hmm, that was my understanding... But I guess I was wrong :P
That makes me wonder...How those cases are possible?

First of all, Wikipedia is NEVER a reliable source. However, nobody ever mentioned he broke in. Since he broke in, he committed burglary, which is a felony.

The elements of burglary are:

Actus Reus:
1: Breaking and
2. Entering or
3. Unlawfully remaing

Mens Rea:
Specific intent to commit a crime in addition to breaking and entering or unlawfully remaining.

Other factors in burglary include:
1. Type of structure and/or
2. Nighttime and/or
3. Occupied structure and/or
4. Intended crime beyond the breaking and entering

All-in-all, he committed a felony. Just because he was caught before he actually completed the crime doesn't mean much. He had both mens rea (intent) and actus reus (guilty act). 1. He made "substantial steps" toward completing the crime and 2. the steps "strongly corroborate his criminal purpose."

[INFERNO]

Wikipedia is known for having poor reliability and validity. If you're going to use a source, might as well just ask an average 9-year old on the street for his uneducated opinion as it's just as reliable and valid.

That being said, I'm going to stay out of the law debate of this debate because, well, I have next to no knowledge on it. However, my opinion is that the three-strike law does have good intentions, however, 25 years seems too much. I think it should depend on each of the crimes committed. I agree, that after 3 of the same crimes does warrant for more jail time, however, 25 years? That is excessive to me, even if bail can be made after, say 10 years.

[Maverick]

I'm not for the 3 strikes law. Every case and sentencing should be judged individually and made accordingly.

There's really no good reason for this magic number of 3. Why not 2, 4, or 8 strikes? Is there really any thought into this or is this some politician's agenda to appear hard on crime using a cliche.

[rivermaya]

it should be adjusted to fit the crime. or the sentence would be longer for repeat offenders by a certain percentage rather than just slap the 26 years to life.

[Mzor203]

Well, if someone went around doing petty thefts all over the place, and never got punished harshly, then he's just going to keep on doing it. Every single crime can't be judged individually. If someone has committed a crime in the past, then he's a lot more likely to commit more crimes than any other random person.

THere are some rediculous cases, and some things like theft are caused by reasons that aren't really sinister, such as the fact that many people are homeless and jobless, but you shouldn't let someone run around doing crap all over the place without punishing him harshly to get it into their head.

So I'm for and against it to different degrees.

[Antares]

Three strikes...
I don't agree with it.
I think that if you commit a crime, you do the time for that time with minor consideration for past crimes that directly relate to the current crime.

So for instance, OJ Simpson.
He TOTALLY should not have gotten such harsh of a sentance. If people thought he were guilty, then thats too bad because in a court of law, he was found innocent. So screw all of you :P


eventhough...i think he totally did it ;)

[theOperaGhost]

Now that I've thought about this a little bit, I'm for the concept of the law, but I'm against an actual set minimum.

Law goes on a case by case basis. I feel the only minimum sentence that should stand is one year for a felony.

However, I agree with the concept of there being a harsher punishment for someone who commits several felonies. This harsher punishment should not be static though, because very little in law is set to a fixed sentence. There is a lot of flexibility from case to case because EVERY case has some different variable. There are over 6 billion people on this planet. The EXACT same crime will very likely not be committed twice and even less likely under the same circumstances.

[Antares]

If they made prisons a living hell then we wouldnt have this problem.
Im gonna be a radical and say, lock them ALL up for 23 hours a day. Feed them and let them sit there and think. That would end all these shinanagans about gang activity and drugs.

[The Batman]

I think that punishment should be based upon crime. It's just wrong to punish someone harshly for a small crime even if they've done other things in their past, they've done the time for those crimes so why should they do more? Prison is a hell of a lot better than a homeless shelter. Make it hell take away the tv's, the recreation, and anything that could be found fun. That way they can do what they are suppose to do sit and think about what they have done.