c h i e f y Member Posts: 415 From: Surrey, United Kingdom Registered: 03-07-2002 |
I personally thoroughly support the California THREE STRIKES law and it's TEN YEARS OLD!
quote: That is THREE STRIKES and the UK should have adopted it way back in 1994 when California did, but no we would prefer to see repeat offenders BACK OUT on the streets, ripping off old ladies and burgling our houses what a sick joke [size=5]should THREE STRIKES be adopted WORLD WIDE?[/size] ------------------ |
Krylar Administrator Posts: 502 From: MD, USA Registered: 03-05-2001 |
Looks like a good plan to me. Only thing I don't like is that even on the 3rd strike there's the possibility for parole. I think that if you've demonstrated 3 times (after already being in prison twice) that you can't play nice in society, you should be removed from society. Of course, I kinda feel that even 3 times is a bit much to let someone get away with...that's 3 innocent lives affected. What I especially like about the 3 strikes bit is that if a person ends up being wrongfully accused, it's not likely that they'll be wrongfully accused two more times! Also, it gives that individual the chance to redeem themselves. So...3 can be good and bad, I guess. I'm certain that the 3 strikes is only applicable to the degree of severity of the crime anyway. -Krylar ------------------ |
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
For the wrongfully accused it really depends on how much you can rely on the wisdom and intelligence of your peers - that is, your jury, your judge, your attorney(s), and your police force. I think the 3 strikes law is great, but there is more to the process than just that. Obviously the guilty are unconcerned over being tried unfairly in comparison to the wrongfully accused. If they are going to commit a crime again, what difference does it make if the trial is fair or not to them. I think the bigger issue is whether or not one crime indicates the likelihood of repeat crimes by that person. Does the system allow for mistaken identity or malicious intent based on a prior conviction, or does the fact that a person has established a record have no bearing at all on case 2 or case 3. The system is only as good as the people who enforce it. |
c h i e f y Member Posts: 415 From: Surrey, United Kingdom Registered: 03-07-2002 |
quote: errr it has no bearing on case 2 or case 3 In no court is a person's record EVER revealed, before a jury decides whether he is guilty or not, therefore it cannot influence case 2 or case 3 Three Strikes HAS been carefully thought through check here for the exact details It is about dealing with REPEAT OFFENDERS and keeping them OFF our streets It should go World Wide in my opinion (or at least UK wide anyway ) The system is only as good as the people who enforce it hmmm I am confused by that, oh well, who else is commenting? ------------------ |
nfektious Member Posts: 408 From: Registered: 10-25-2002 |
I would expect such an idea to be well thought out. I don't know much about the law, which one thing I'm happy to be ignorant of. I prefer to be on the right side of that law anytime My comment "The system is only as good as the people who enforce it" means that even those behind the law can be just as guilty as those who break the law. Here in the US (and according to various world news agencies *cough*like BBC*cough*) we've heard all to often the effect of corrupt public officials. Since we are all human, we all have that capability. Sadly, the fact that you wear a badge or take an oath to represent the law, doesn't have any bearing on honesty, integrity or a fair sense of justice. Those characteristics have to be within the heart and soul of a person and don't come from a piece of metal, a black robe, or a half dozen years of schooling. But, that doesn't mean the law is bad or useless. I think it is better to have the 3 strikes law than not to have it at all. But I still think there is more to solving the problem of crime and corruption. [edit] quote: So, the jury may not know of previous convictions, but under the law, the court is required to advise the jury of the sentence options. The sentence options are based on the number of previous convictions, under this law. Did I misread that or am I just a dolt? (be nice Chiefy) [This message has been edited by nfektious (edited January 03, 2004).] |
c h i e f y Member Posts: 415 From: Surrey, United Kingdom Registered: 03-07-2002 |
good query nfektious, but the jury do not get advised of sentence options - because they do not "sentence" anybody "all" they do is come to a verdict nfektious we've heard all to often the effect of corrupt public officials and we've heard all too often about murders rapes and robberies to listen to the news, you would think that the streets are FULL of murders rapes and robberies wouldn't you and that every cop is taking bribes and arresting innocent people and fabricating evidence against them, is that what you believe then? ------------------ |
AmazingJas Member Posts: 437 From: Sydney, NSW, AUSTRALIA Registered: 04-03-2003 |
Interesting, this could turn into a warm discussion, but not as toasty as a Capital Punishment discussion...but I'm not game to start one! |