Food for Thought

[ChloeTzang]

This would make a lot of sense. Doesn't matter what the crime is. 3 strikes and bang. 80% of crime eliminated.

We've tried the liberal approach and obviously it hasn't working and won't work. This would seem worth a try.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

If you can guarantee there are no bad cops it's a good solution, sadly you can't so it's a dumb solution.

 

[HisArpy]

3 strikes here in Ca was supposed to do that. Right up until liberal judges started "striking the prior strikes" so that they didn't have to hand out the life without parole sentence.

The result? Lifetime hard criminals allowed to walk our streets and prey upon the innocent.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I'm of two minds on this.

 

[Boat1]

If you can guarantee there are no bad cops it's a good solution, sadly you can't so it's a dumb solution.

^^^EXACTLY THIS^^^

 

[HisArpy]

I'm of two minds on this.

Which is what?

 

[Politruk]

Too many Americans are in prison as it is now. And not, I'm sure, because Americans are any more crime-prone than anybody else.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Which is what?

Some folks actually do iron out their shit and straighten up and fly right, and a lifer means they're a ward of the state anyway. Most don't, and three strikes solves that for all of us. Then there are the psychopaths who can pretend to create Cohesive Feces and they're still psychopaths when push comes to shove.


So, I don't know.

 

[HisArpy]

Some folks actually do iron out their shit and straighten up and fly right, and a lifer means they're a ward of the state anyway. Most don't, and three strikes solves that for all of us. Then there are the psychopaths who can pretend to create Cohesive Feces and they're still psychopaths when push comes to shove.


So, I don't know.

Those who get it together tend not to commit that 3rd strike. Many of them don't do a second strike.

Those who do commit that 3rd strike deserve what's coming and the courts shouldn't let them off the hook to go out and continue to prey on society. THE POINT of 3 strikes is to get the repeat offender off the streets. It doesn't work if that 3 time loser is still walking around on probation after 15 strike offenses.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Those who get it together tend not to commit that 3rd strike. Many of them don't do a second strike.

Those who do commit that 3rd strike deserve what's coming and the courts shouldn't let them off the hook to go out and continue to prey on society. THE POINT of 3 strikes is to get the repeat offender off the streets. It doesn't work if that 3 time loser is still walking around on probation after 15 strike offenses.

People "hit bottom" at different rates for different folks. I just hate saying "all" when there are exceptions sometimes. It feels like the baby and the bath water.

 

[Lazaran]

3 strikes here in Ca was supposed to do that. Right up until liberal judges started "striking the prior strikes" so that they didn't have to hand out the life without parole sentence.

The result? Lifetime hard criminals allowed to walk our streets and prey upon the innocent.

Some folks actually do iron out their shit and straighten up and fly right, and a lifer means they're a ward of the state anyway. Most don't, and three strikes solves that for all of us. Then there are the psychopaths who can pretend to create Cohesive Feces and they're still psychopaths when push comes to shove.


So, I don't know.

Neither of the two quoted dumbfucks comprehended the OP.

Maybe the two quoted dumbfucks would care to address the solution for crime reduction proffered in the OP???



the two quoted dumbfucks

 

[HisArpy]

People "hit bottom" at different rates for different folks. I just hate saying "all" when there are exceptions sometimes. It feels like the baby and the bath water.

I think more people need to ask themselves if;

• Someone commits a crime, should they be punished for it?
• If that same someone commits a violent crime, should the punishment be harsher than for a non-violent crime?
• If that same someone continues to commit violent crimes, at what point do we as society stop giving him a second chance? Or a third chance?

 

[RoryN]

 

[Yarglenurp]

The “liberal” approach absolutely does work. It’s basically to create a robust safety net so that mediocre people can work and build a life for themselves.

The most important liberal approach is abortion. With more abortions, there is less crime, because nothing creates criminals more than a bunch of kids who are born without means.

The liberal approach keeps getting undercut by conservatives who insist it doesn’t work and then rip all the funding away from the liberal approach. They then pay a lot more to insurance companies, cops, and private prisons. So, fucking great, my taxes go to prisons instead of schools. How the fuck does that make any sense?

Ultimately, I think your “California liberals sucks” ideology is undercut by the fact that you live in California… go to Mississippi and you’ll see how well ruby red Republican policies work in practice. They’ve turned the entire state into Oakland.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I think more people need to ask themselves if;

• Someone commits a crime, should they be punished for it?
• If that same someone commits a violent crime, should the punishment be harsher than for a non-violent crime?
• If that same someone continues to commit violent crimes, at what point do we as society stop giving him a second chance? Or a third chance?

Yes, I know. I'm there. It's the dumbshit felonies without violence. I don't know.

 

[Lazaran]

I think more people need to ask themselves if;

• Someone commits a crime, should they be punished for it?
• If that same someone commits a violent crime, should the punishment be harsher than for a non-violent crime?
• If that same someone continues to commit violent crimes, at what point do we as society stop giving him a second chance? Or a third chance?

Yes, I know. I'm there. It's the dumbshit felonies without violence. I don't know.

These two dumbfucks STILL won’t address the "solution" the right wing OP put forward.

I wonder why???



We. Know. Why.



two dumbfucks

 

[TastySuckToy]

For society to adopt executing criminals and to get support from someone like myself, several criteria need to be met:

1) only applies in cases of guilty beyond any possible doubt
2) the criminal offense is truly a ongoing and unacceptable danger to society
3) the individual is clearly beyond any kind of rehabilitation
4) the method of execution is humane, not intented to be a punishment in itself, but merely a solution of last resort

Then I'd be in favour of it, simply out of reluctant necessity.

 

[ll74]

For society to adopt executing criminals and to get support from someone like myself, several criteria need to be met:

1) only applies in cases of guilty beyond any possible doubt
2) the criminal offense is truly a ongoing and unacceptable danger to society
3) the individual is clearly beyond any kind of rehabilitation
4) the method of execution is humane, not intented to be a punishment in itself, but merely a solution of last resort

Then I'd be in favour of it, simply out of reluctant necessity.

A bunch of subjective things...most of which could be argued enough for reasonable doubt on almost every case in existence.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

I'm of two minds on this.

An impressive showing, for half a brain.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

For society to adopt executing criminals and to get support from someone like myself, several criteria need to be met:

1) only applies in cases of guilty beyond any possible doubt
2) the criminal offense is truly a ongoing and unacceptable danger to society
3) the individual is clearly beyond any kind of rehabilitation
4) the method of execution is humane, not intented to be a punishment in itself, but merely a solution of last resort

Then I'd be in favour of it, simply out of reluctant necessity.

I'm anti-death penalty. I don't think the state has the right (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness/property) to be executing its citizens. On the other hand, life without parole can and should mean just that in some egregious cases.

 

[Rebel5soul]

Big can of worms Chloe.

First of all almost all those crimes are state prosecuted crimes. I'm not at all in favor of the Federal government taking over the criminal justice system, I think they're already far too involved.

I think the graph you posted is somewhat misleading. In virtually all the states to be sentenced to state prison is a sentence of 1 year or more. That big jump in the 31+ line is virtually impossible unless the crimes include a ton of misdemeanors.

Recidivism is a problem with the 10 year rearrest rate being ~82% (~66% for 3 year rearrests) according to a DOJ study.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I'm anti-death penalty. I don't think the state has the right (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness/property) to be executing its citizens. On the other hand, life without parole can and should mean just that in some egregious cases.

It can be argued such life time imprisonment is equivalent to torture, and it is not ethical to ask people to pay for such imprisonment costs to appease those who think killing can never be justified.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

It can be argued such life time imprisonment is equivalent to torture, and it is not ethical to ask people to pay for such imprisonment costs to appease those who think killing can never be justified.

Lawyers make a killing keeping death row doofuses alive through windy appeals.


Of course, if they were to get shanked . . . .

 

[TastySuckToy]

Lawyers make a killing keeping death row doofuses alive through windy appeals.

If you're saying the justice system is corrupt and exploited, you'll get no argument from me.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I would tend to be more in favor of the "Three Strikes..." law if it was applied to violent or serious crimes. Heck, for some crimes, I'd be in favor of "ONE strike, you're dead." Rape and murder of a child, for example. But in the "Three Strikes..." law, you'd see things like people getting busted with a joint, or driving without a license, and go down for life. I'm not in favor of that.

I liked the IDEA of "three strikes" but the argument was, what constitutes a strike? Are we gonna give life sentences to some low-level street drug users who get nabbed with a half gram of coke, or an eighth of bud? This kind of thing started happening, which was why people started questioning the law.