Crime Do you support bringing back the "3 strikes" rule?

[F1980]

I think they began being lax about this in the last 25 years or so

I remember in the 90s people were scared about this

but now not so much

There's so many repeat offenders here. They do shit every day. Most of the shit they do are not even on record because they dont get caught on most of the illegal shit they do.

For example, burglary. If someone gets caught burgalizing a place of business or a residential home, after doing it 3 times.

Another issue is that the law is very, VERY lenient on juveniles, which do a LOT of the crime here in California, probably the entire country.

For example, the "hitters" in gang shootings are often the young because the punishment is basically nothing compared to what it would be if they were adults. In Mexican and black gangs here in LA.

 

[cincymma79]

In spirit yes but practice no

 

[DoctorTaco]

There's so many repeat offenders here. They do shit every day. Most of the shit they do are not even on record because they dont get caught on most of the illegal shit they do.

if they don’t get caught how can you know they’re doing it?

 

[Stoic1]

Yes. The pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction. We need a STRONG reminder that actions have consequences.

 

[ChrisBenoit]

100%. I'd even support 3 strikes and the death penalty

 

[IDGETKTFO]

Having done time in prison 1 time in my life almost 2 decades ago, yes i support 3 strikes you're out. Some people do some time, realize the juice is not worth the squeeze, and learn their lesson, and some people don't. If you can't figure that out after 2 times, then you probably never will.

 

[The XL]

No. You should receive a sentence proportionate to the crime you've committed. The three strike rule is objectively a violation of the 8th Amendment outlawing cruel and unusual punishment. The issue here is that judges are not sentencing criminals to appropriate punishments. In many cases, they're not being punished at all

 

[F1980]

if they don’t get caught how can you know they’re doing it?

Because I grew up here. In the 90s, theres drive by shootings. Every. Single. Day. There's people that have gotten away with it. They are now in their 40s and never got caught shooting up the opps back in 1991.

 

[Confucamus]

Yes, but maybe increase it to 5 strikes? 3 strikes seems like it could happen in a very short span of time during the worst years of a person's life. I'd like to see a more rehabilitative approach though.

 

[DoctorTaco]

I'd like to see a more rehabilitative approach though.

same

 

[djacobox372]

No, judicial powers shouldn't be part of legislation.

 

[Rob Battisti]

100%. I'd even support 3 strikes and the death penalty

This I agree with.

 

[method115]

No because even when we had it they still used it incorrectly. Look up freeway Rick Ross. He got sentenced to life because the 3 strike rule was abused by the prosecutor.

 

[White Whale]

It depends on the crimes of they keep doing violent crimes than get them off the street.

 

[milliniar]

Life sentence no, 3rd crime of a type consideration of a max sentence sure

 

[nhbbear]

I think they began being lax about this in the last 25 years or so

I remember in the 90s people were scared about this

but now not so much

There's so many repeat offenders here. They do shit every day. Most of the shit they do are not even on record because they dont get caught on most of the illegal shit they do.

For example, burglary. If someone gets caught burgalizing a place of business or a residential home, after doing it 3 times.

Another issue is that the law is very, VERY lenient on juveniles, which do a LOT of the crime here in California, probably the entire country.

For example, the "hitters" in gang shootings are often the young because the punishment is basically nothing compared to what it would be if they were adults. In Mexican and black gangs here in LA.

Oh man, this will be the third time on here I have discussed this in the past two days and I taught part of a lecture on the three strikes law yesterday.

So, throughout history in this country, judges and courts have long believed that being a habitual offender should have increased penalties. In 93, Cali came up with 3 strikes as the name. In 94, the omnibus crime bill freed up federal money to put 100k new police officers in the job and freed up money to help states pay for offenders serving time in mandatory minimum sentences and three strikes laws. This was to combat the extreme gang violence of the late 80s and early 90s. It also outlawed assault rifles, but we know that assault weapons are rarely used in day to day street crime.

The three strikes laws are targeted at habitual, violent offenders. 3 felonies (as long as the third is a violent felony) and the person is supposed to be locked up for life. But I have only seen it used once that I can recall in my area and the use of the laws have faded from common use and having read probably a thousand triple Is (complete criminal history including every arrest or fingerprinting by police, findings of guilt or dropped charges, and sentence for crime) mostly of criminals from Cleveland, I can tell you that I have seen shitbags rack up dozens of felonies and never seem to get much time. Even violent felonies. People have lost their taste for long prison sentences, especially for POCs.

And to expand on what you said and what I have mentioned in other posts, you can thank la county da george gascon and others like him for the damage they have done. gascon refuses to use three strikes laws. He refuses to charge juveniles as adults regardless of crime. He refuses to use gun or gang enhancement penalties for criminals that use a gun to commit a crime despite this asshole being anti-gun.

Man, I rail against progressive district attorneys all the time. I have a list of them that are the most egregious offenders imo. They have harmed criminal justice and their policies have directly led to the deaths of Americans. Unfortunately, as long as he’s alive, george soros will continue to fund progressive candidates in as many places as he can to implement soft on crime policies.

 

[cooks1]

Not a good idea. Amazing how quickly people forget.

1) Gives police too much leverage and power in terms of coercion.
2) It does not have a proven effect on deterrence.
3) It HORRENDOUSLY clogs up the legal system (NO ONE pleads to a 3rd strike) which means there are way more criminals actually out in the world awaiting trial. That can actually drive crime up. And it blows up the financial cost of all the trials.
4) Completely blows up the cost of incarceration. The cost of keeping someone in jail the back end of their life (when they are LEAST likely to reoffend) costs 2-3 x than when they are younger.

Bad Ju Ju

3 things that we actually know work:

1) You must CATCH and PROSECUTE violent criminals. In spite of all the surveillance and tech, clearance rates are way down. And it's a known fact that the likelihood of getting caught is a more effective deterrent than the severity of the punishment.

2) We just need to send people to jail longer for VIOLENT crimes full stop.

If you know the odds are high you will get caught, and the odds are high you will go in for a while, you will think twice.

3) Reduce poverty/improve education......and for fuck sakes find something for the boys to do. Men commit 90% of violent crimes. And age and poverty level are by far the highest risk factors.

 

[DoctorTaco]

I like judges being able to have the freedom to doll our punishment on a case by case basis instead of having their hands tied by something like a 3 strike rule or mandatory minimum sentencing.

 

[tenniswhiz]

Yes, but maybe increase it to 5 strikes? 3 strikes seems like it could happen in a very short span of time during the worst years of a person's life. I'd like to see a more rehabilitative approach though.

That should work.

I just don’t want to read another story about a person who was previously arrested 47 times and then killed someone.

 

[badascan]

Sure, if there's room for leniency for mistakes like if the system is weaponized against an innocent person. But if a person. Burglarized a business or home it should be 1 strike, they're finished right there...