Talk:Three strikes law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 three strikes bad 2 "Strange results" --> "Controversial results" 3 two time loser 4 5/23/05 5 Lack of consistency in "violent or serious" 6 Merger with Mandatory Sentencing 7 California law 8 "Perverse incentive" 9 "Three Srikes law is crap" 10 POV 11 I concur with you on the POV issue

[edit] three strikes bad

why do u think the three strikes are bad?

First, you should sign your comments. Second, whether an author thinks the policy is "bad" or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles must conform to a neutral point of view policy. Juansmith 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. See my entry in the John Gibson discussion. For example, I think the three strikes law is typical conservative idiocy, yet still respect that there are others who don't feel that way. Wikipedia should(somehow) accuratly reflect both these points of views. 64.160.121.83 08:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Strange results" --> "Controversial results"

I don't believe the section title "Strange results" and the section therein conform to the NPOV policy. Juansmith 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue was controversial enough that the U.S. Supreme Court was willing to grant cert, so it should definitely be mentioned. The reason it was controversial at the international level was that no other industrialized First World country sentences convicts to such long sentences for commensurate crimes. I think the quotation of O'Connor's reasoning makes it neutral enough. What exactly do you find nonneutral about it? --Coolcaesar 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant that it's controversial, and should be included, however "strange" is a borderline term which may violate NPOV. In addition, some aspects of how the section is written seem to pass judgment on the law. Some words are italicized for emphasis, which would seem to indicate the tone and perception of the author as he wrote about each idea. Also, it seems inappropriate to include what is clearly critical language in a section called "History", especially when there is a "Criticism" section lower in the article. I could see the "strange results" section being merged with "Criticism", but it would have to be altered somewhat to conform to NPOV. Juansmith 06:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the section title was changed from "strange results" to "controversial results". It's a good start, to be sure, but that section is still in need of a rewrite to conform the NPOV and quality standards. Juansmith 07:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I reworded a lot of the section and deleted what I felt to be unneccesary information (I felt there was far too much exposition on some of the laws or sentences mentioned) or POV. I think it fits, now. SeriousLee

The new wording of the section is acceptable. Good job, SeriousLee. Under the banner of "controversial results", it conveys the same message without taking a side on the issue. There is just one issue: "Harsh" criticism may be questionable under NPOV, but I think it can stay unchanged, as long as there is a source attributed for the claim. Does anyone have one? Juansmith 18:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The one person mentioned in this section with an actual article was removed, so I have restored it. I feel the information lends credence to the headline.--Metron4 19:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just came across this article for the first time. That section doesn't seem NPOV to me. IMO, the sign could be removed. However, that particular section could use to be cleaned up a bit, since it's not particularly well written atm. 213.112.22.70 01:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] two time loser

This term would make more sense if three time loser' were used somewhere in the article for contextRJFJR 23:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)yeah

No, it already makes sense as it stands. The person is called a two-time loser because of the ubiquitous joke that a criminal is just someone who had a bad day (in the sense that when incriminating contraband is found on them, they always say "it's not mine" even when it really is theirs). So someone who had two bad days must be a loser (in the dual senses of being really unlucky or just really pathetic), because now they are one more bad day from going to prison for 25 years to life.

Actually, it's closer to life, considering that the California Supreme Court in January 2005 just gave the parole board carte blanche. The parole board can deny parole for any reason including the nature of the original crime and the defendant's failure to take responsibility for his actions and stop claiming he's innocent. Which means that a lot of defendants on indeterminate sentences just found their sentences turned into de facto life sentences.--Coolcaesar 08:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added some additional comments on the strange results that result by applying one size fits all sentencing schemes. The source is 1170.12 Cal.P.C.--Veniceslug1 03:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 5/23/05

I edited the following lines, which originally read as follows:

"Additional unfairness can result under some statutory schemes where two prior convictions can result from a single act."

That word "unfairness" is a biased term in what should be an objective article. Many people would not see this as being at all unfair.

"Therefore, a sentence of 25 years to life will actually be a life sentence in most cases, because the parole board is unlikely to grant parole for the vast majority of eligible prisoners."

This is laughably inaccurate. State parole boards are putting prisoners of all types back on the streets at record paces right now. In many states the parole board is a veritable revolving door whose mission is to cut costs in the correctional system instead of guaranteeing public safety. There is no sound basis at all for the proposition that "the parole board is unlikely to grant parole for the vast majority of eligible prisoners." In fact, the reverse is true!

Let me get you a napkin, you seem to be spitting up rhetoric. 64.160.121.83 08:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As the US is locking people away at a higher rate than ever - unless everybody is jailed for life, each year you will get more and more people released from prison. Parole board releases will logically go up when there are more prisoners to be released. In addition filling up prisons with 3 time losers is a very good way of meaning first time (possibly violent) felons will have to be released early simply to make room.

What kind of crazy hillbilly state do you live in? It's obviously not California; our parole board is notorious for its stubborn refusal to grant parole to all but the most saintly and reformed of prisoners. The governor has the power to fire and replace parole board members at any time, so they are understandably reluctant to release anyone unless they are confident that the chance of recidivism is zero.

That's why our prisons are notoriously overcrowded and a federal district judge just took over the broken prison healthcare system last year. We DO NOT release people to make room for the three-time losers like Andrade and Ewing. Instead, we just keep cramming more and more convicts into the Department of Corrections system, in every possible way imaginable (even old prison gyms have been converted into giant holding pens for less dangerous inmates).

Also, I should point out that in many states and the federal system, parole has been abolished altogether. Either you get out or you don't. There is no discretion. --Coolcaesar 06:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of consistency in "violent or serious"

I think the article is not consistent throughout the text. I read in the middle that felonies must be considered "violent" or "serious". I am pretty sure how to gauge the violence of a crime, however, I have a hard time conceiving of a felony not deemed "serious"

Now, I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with the actual text of the law, but the contradiction comes in the next section where previous convictions of shoplifting or possession of drugs can be used against you (when is that considered serious or not?)

The contradiction arises from how California has "wobbler" crimes where the sole reason for the elevation of a crime from a misdemeanor to a felony is the fact that the suspect has already been previously convicted at least one or more times of that crime as a misdemeanor. That is, if the crime had been committed as a first-time crime, it would have been charged as a misdemeanor. For example, if Leandro Andrade had never been convicted of anything in his life before he stole Disney videotapes on two occasions from a K-Mart, he would have probably been convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to a few weeks in jail or even probation. It is his prior criminal record which was the basis for treating his petty theft of videotapes as a felony (even though the actual harm on this particular occasion was rather small). In contrast, speaking hypothetically, if he had robbed a bank, nonviolently, of a million dollars, most people would agree that the amount and target would make such a robbery a serious felony. --Coolcaesar 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The California Three Strikes Law refers in its terms to previously existing laws that enhanced sentences based on prior convictions. One of these law enhanced convictions for what it defined as "violent felonies" the other for "serious felonies". It is the law under which one is convicted, and the actual seriousness or violence in the acts, that determines if it meets the laws terms. Veniceslug1 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger with Mandatory Sentencing

Discussion moved to Talk:Mandatory sentencing#Merger proposal.

[edit] California law

Btw Veniceslug1, why does the California law constitute a three strikes law if judicial discretion is retained? If the law is not mandatory in nature, its either not a three strikes law or the scope of the definition needs to be expanded to explain this aspect (aka "when a mandatory sentencing law is not mandatory"). 203.198.237.30 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The scope of the definition needs to be expanded - Texas also had/has (I'm unsure of its current status) a "recidivist statute" aka "Three-strikes law" which I don't believe was mandatory (see my comment at Talk:Mandatory sentencing#Merger proposal for more information).

[edit] "Perverse incentive"

The commentary on this aspect of criticism is either not well stated, or the criticism itself is a logical fallacy. Is it attempting to say that a 2 strike perp who has actually committed 3 or more felonies may decide that it is in his best interests to commit murder in relation to an unconvicted felony? It also currently contains the unstated assumption that a 2 strike perp is always captured a 3rd time (so why commit the 3rd at all, regardless of its nature?). The section needs to be clarified or deleted. 203.198.237.30 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited the section in question and I addressed what you brought up. It is indeed a logical fallacy, and rather than delete the section I merely added a sentence to illustrate this to the reader. Looking back on it, though, I think it may break NPOV. 66.41.67.211 12:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited it even further, since I hard problems understanding it on my first reading. I think it's better now, but feel free to improve on it further. I also suspect I may have made it just slightly NPOV, but not more so than I can live with. 213.112.22.70 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Three Srikes law is crap"

My father is in Folsom State prison because of the three strikes law. They pulled up an offence from seven years ago and counted it as a strike and because he already had two, he's in prison for eight years. He wont get out until i'm 21 and i'm 15 right now. I think it's nothing but stupid crap! You wanna know what the offence was? Threatening people. He didn't even act. Now i'[m not saying it's right, and he should definately serve time for that but the fact is HE DID! He served six months in a county jail for the crime and it shouldn't have been counted. The three strikes law is the stupidest crap i've ever heard and I would like everyone to know that.

Too bad. The point of the three strikes law is to discourage people from acting in a threatening or violent manner. The mere threat of violence is against public policy because such action tends to provoke violent behavior in others. If your father is so stupid as to misbehave even with two strikes on his record, he has demonstrated that he deserves long-term incarceration to ensure the safety of his fellow citizens. A smart person would have been on his best behavior after his first felony conviction and would have sought to prove that he was rehabilitated as quickly as possible in order to get the conviction expunged or sealed. --Coolcaesar 18:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Punishment for any crime should be isolated to that crime alone. To add punishment to a second crime for the fact of the first crime is really a double punishment of the first crime.

You commit Crime A, then serve time for Crime A. You commit similar crime B, you should serve time only for Crime B, and not for Crime B, plus additional crime because of the fact of Crime A.

Three strikes law is very bad law and probably un-Constitutional. We owe it to ourselves, as citizens, to exercise jury nullification any time we sit as jury members on a trial involving the possibility of a Three Strikes statute being used.

If society truly wants to reduce recidivism, the best path is to treat each infraction of the law as its own isolated incident, implement the punishment only for that distinct breaking of the law, then let the person start life fresh again afterwards. When we stamp permanent labels on people and punish them forever for crimes that they served time for long ago, we are really not allowing for an atmosphere for rehabilitation and recidivism.

The constitutionality of the law has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, which is made up nine really smart people who got straight A's in high school, college, and law school, and served on law review, and clerked with the Supreme Court, and then had outstanding careers as litigators or law professors before being nominated to the bench.

If you don't like the law, you have the legal right to speak out against it. But the vast majority of the American people support three-strikes laws because they recognize that some people are so dangerous as to warrant long-term incarceration for the safety of society. One time could be an accident; two times might be just very bad luck; but three times is enough. A person has to be either very stupid, unlucky, or incorrigible to be convicted of a serious crime three times. It is very unlikely that these laws will be legislated out of existence (or judicially overturned) in the foreseeable future.

Three-strikes is kind of like the duty of reasonable care in negligence in tort law. To paraphrase law professor Roger Schechter: We impose this duty upon all people including those who will never be able to conform their conduct to it, which makes it an extremely harsh rule. But we do it anyway because of our concern for our own safety and our own right to not be harmed by negligent conduct. --Coolcaesar 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself to have just as much smarts and sense as those "nine really smart people" you mention. I do not at all buy the elitist argument presented above, implying that no one but a Supreme Court judge can fathom the rationale and importance of legislation. The Constitution was written for the common man, and its supreme power was vested in the people, not the government.

So, you want to lock someone up for stealing a candy bar? Fine, but don't expect me to deliver a guilty verdict from a jury box. In fact, if such a person uses deadly force to avoid incarceration for the third strike, I'll have to say you brought it upon yourselves, and again, I would not deliver a guilty verdict from the jury box. Evil, oppressive laws do not deserve support.

Please tell me you have said these words in haste. If not, I implore you to re-evaluate your position on freeing murderers and violent thugs onto the streets just to prove a point. It may be your loved-one gunned down for their Hercheys. --Jquarry 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Furthermore, the law is neither evil nor oppressive. It puts away only those people who are so stupid as to be unable to conform their conduct to the law despite two earlier strikes. It protects the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, who go to college, work hard, earn a decent living, and therefore never find themselves in such desperate straits that they feel the need to steal golf clubs, videotapes, cookies, or pizza.

Also, I almost forgot to mention that the jury is usually not informed whether they are hearing a three-strikes case or not. Several California Court of Appeal panels have upheld the right of the judge to instruct counsel for both parties to not mention to the jury that they are litigating a three-strikes case, as well as the right of the judge to refuse to tell the jury when they specifically ask. That's how the judiciary has dealt with people like you who try to engage in such silly jury nullification. --Coolcaesar 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I removed the POV Section tag. After reading the article and looking at the discussion above, it appears that the POV concerns had been sufficiently addressed to remove the tag. As an aside, I think the "Controversial Results" section could and should be merged with the Criticisms section.Qball6 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag is warranted, the article is filled with unsourced statements, and anecdotal evidence all criticizing the law. This article needs to be cleaned up, better sourced and the POV issue must be fixed. --ozoneliar 5 September 2006

[edit] I concur with you on the POV issue

I concur. The whole double jeopardy argument against three strikes is so nonsensical that it should not be mentioned. Any five-year-old with a basic understanding of double jeopardy can see why it does not apply to the three strikes situation. --Coolcaesar 05:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)