I don’t get it…you would think those guys with the threat of the third strike hanging over their heads would be very careful not to commit any crime. They knew what the stakes were when they committed #3. Nobody’s fault but theirs.
Game, set, match.
There is nothing to say here. The law was approved by the voters. It is a well-known law. Draconian? Perhaps, but someone with two strikes knows full well that if you BREAK THE LAW a third time, it is serious time in the big house. Period.
I agree that this taxes the prison system, so maybe it would be better to have a “three strikes equals automatic execution.” 
Wolf:
Agree big time, but to maximize the comparative advantages, they should be exported to China where they can be executed with the greatest efficiency and least amount of fuss and as in China, the bill for the bullet will be sent to the families of the executees. Plus the added benefit is whilst they were a worthless lot in life, their organs can go to those productive citizens that can truly put them to a productive, worthwhile, … Republican life. 
Well the chap in question claims not to have known. Ok, lack of knowledge of the law doesn’t excuse you but seriously, a few vids gets you life?
Fred your forgiven. Blubbery men with a penchant for the bottle always walk free from Huang’s Kangaroo court.
I realise this relates to Australia, which has also instituted a “three strikes and your in” policy chiefly aimed at aborigines, but I think it may have some pertinence here:
HG
[quote=“hexuan”]Does ultimate power in the States still rest with the jury? Can a jury return a verdict of “not guilty” in the teeth of the evidence?
I wonder what would happen if US juries began to return not guilty verdicts in cases such as these? Could you convict a man for stealing a video tape, knowing he’d go down for 25 years ? I don’t think I could.[/quote]I don’t know about the US, but in the UK, a suspect’s past record cannot be brought up in court, as far as the jury knows, it is his first offense. I guess the reasoning behind that is that he is being tried for just that one offense, and to stop any “Well, he did it before, so he must have done it this time”. Only after conviction and during sentencing is his past record taken into consideration.
The relevance is that a prosecutor often has access to the defendent and his previous record (unoffically, at least) in a way that helps him make a solid judgement as to the fitness of the three strikes law in his case. What we see as just a fifty year sentence for a petty crime, he might see as a golden opportunity to get some potentially very dangerous man off the streets. He might not be able to see his juvenile record, but he will hear about it no doubt during interviews and he will often hear other testimony that might not be relevant to the particular crime he is charged with, but has compelling relevance to whether he is a menace to society. Does he show a violent strike, but for the luck of God, has so far stayed off his adult record? It’s possible and the prosecutor might know this fact.
Let’s not forget that Al Capone was sentenced to eleven years for tax evasion.
Back again so soon Big Fluffy Matthew:
Getting to be quite a regular here. haha. It’s only a matter of time before you give in to the Dark Side. hahah.
Wanna join Fredfest for martinis and steak tomorrow?
Florida has the same 3 strike law, so why do you think Noelle Bush (Jeb
Really Alien:
I am shocked at your dismissive cynicism and prejudice against the poor. They deserve the same rights as everyone else, too.
A Kinder, Gentler, More Charitable Fred
Strangely I agree with this Fred. It seems unnecessarily cruel to keep someone rotting in death row through eons of appeals with the possibility of a reprieve dangling over their head right down to the wire. The outcome while theoretically avoided doesn’t often seem to be for those of a certain hue or class. If you’re going to do it get it over with and damn well do it publicly if you want to claim it has a deterrant effect. Shit, why not televise it replete with “coke adds life” for good measure and some not too small compensation to the victim’s families.
HG
The relevance is that a prosecutor often has access to the defendent and his previous record (unoffically, at least) in a way that helps him make a solid judgement as to the fitness of the three strikes law in his case. What we see as just a fifty year sentence for a petty crime, he might see as a golden opportunity to get some potentially very dangerous man off the streets. He might not be able to see his juvenile record, but he will hear about it no doubt during interviews and he will often hear other testimony that might not be relevant to the particular crime he is charged with, but has compelling relevance to whether he is a menace to society. Does he show a violent strike, but for the luck of God, has so far stayed off his adult record? It’s possible and the prosecutor might know this fact.
Let’s not forget that Al Capone was sentenced to eleven years for tax evasion.[/quote]
i thought you meant that the 3 strikes law addresses/circumvents the juvenile non-record problem on its face, and not as a invisible aid for prosecutors.
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Shit, why not televise it replete with “coke adds life” for good measure and some not too small compensation to the victim’s families.
HG[/quote]
Yeah! Bingo! Great idea for reality television.
Call it “Life Behind Bars” and broadcast it 24 hours a day.
HGC:
Perhaps you are right. The criminals could be executed and the sale of their usable organs should go to the victims minus an administrative fee for the court system? and taxes should be paid as well to support the free lawyer service and organ distribution program? and educational programs for the less fortunate? and maybe TV adverts to show what happens to those who don’t toe the Three Strikes Line with a catchy jingle such as…
Mess up once more and you’re going get whacked
Steal or rape again and you’re going get smacked
Nothing could be fina
than to ship your ass off to China
Where they’ll put a bullet in your head
another if you still ain’t dead
Before selling off your speen and kidneys
Doing one hell of a biznees
So you betta think twice
before you heist the ice
or the guvimint will knock you down more than just a peg
givin a whole new meaning to costing you an arm and a leg
Freddie the poet
The problem is, Alleycat – and perhaps you missed it – but the Supreme Court, who is the final arbiter of constitutional issues in the U.S., has decided that California’s law is valid.
One can’t argue about the relevance of double jeopardy, or cruel and unusual punishment, or constitutionalism as defined by public choice theory, without running into the cold and cruel fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that California’s law does not violate any of them.
If you want to argue this case on moral grounds or if you want to debate that the law is an inefficienct waste of resources, go ahead. But the legal matter has been settled.
The point is that the prosecutor has some discretion, and that he is likely to exercise this discretion based on cues that may not be available to those who read your basic news report on the case.
Has she three strikes yet? From the link you posted:
[quote]She was charged with prescription fraud, a felony that carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail and a $5,000 fine. Noelle Bush has no known criminal record and was released without having to post bond.
Experts say punishment for a first offense is usually drug treatment or probation.
usatoday.com/news/nation/200 … e-bush.htm
[/quote]
But I suppose one strike is enough when the defendant is a fascist, right?
Is that the case? I thought it was straight up. It certainly was meant to be in Australia.
HG
Is that the case? I thought it was straight up. It certainly was meant to be in Australia.
HG[/quote]
I can’t speak for Australia, and I’m not a lawyer, but in the U.S., judges and – in certain states and for certain cases – prosecutors have often had a lot of discretion on sentencing. In fact, many judges are now some of the harshest critics of the three-strikes law because they say it has taken away their discretion to mete out an appropriate sentence. And they consider themselves to be the most fit determiner as to the appropriate sentence of any individual case before them.
Here’s an example of what I mean:
Judges go soft on sentences more often
…and the response to this trend of lighter sentencing:
Judges Barred on Lighter Sentences
Of course this is all very complicated, and there is a danger whenever someone who is not trained as a lawyer or as a legal scholar, speaks on these issues, but I believe my general comments are correct.
CF.
There does seem to be some considerable similarity between what’s going on in Australia and the States. Several Australian state governments have been trying to tighten up on perceived "liberal’ judgements.
Cheers.
HG
Huang –
That’s good to hear. I’ve always fondly thought of most Australians as just misplaced Americans.