CF
But you have to understand, most of us already have one strike against us. This three strikes business scares the shit out of us . . . where they going to transport us to next?
HG
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]CF
But you have to understand, most of us already have one strike against us. This three strikes business scares the shit out of us . . . where they going to transport us to next?
HG[/quote]
Aren’t you trying to escape from Australia anyway? Rather than worry about where the Australian authorities will transport you to, take preemptive action and immigrate to one of those lovely countries of your youthful imagination, like Cuba, Vietnam, or North Korea. 
You mean this isn’t China? 
Doh!
HG
It’s true that repeat offenders of even petty crimes shouldn’t be let loose on the streets because they’re a recidivist certainty – a ‘menace to society.’ (Paging Willie Horton. Paging Mr. Willie Horton. Your furlough is up.)
It’s also true that imprisoning career petty criminals for life in penitentiaries is draconian and unjust by any reasonable standard. (See ‘Les Miserables.’)
What to do then?
What we have here is a ‘think outside the box’ question.
The solution is the creation of controlled environments with conditions that approximate normal, outside life. People who haven’t even committed a crime but suspect themselves capable of committing heinous acts would be encouraged to approach the intakes of these controlled environments for evaluation before they do something even they know would be terrible. Petty criminals would be isolated from normal society here. The emphasis would be on long-term controlled separation for the benefit of both society and individual, preemptive rather than reactive detention, true rehabilitation and self-support.
This solution should make both Mother Theresa and Fred Smith happy after they’ve had suitably long naps.
Next question. Make this one harder this time.
[quote=“Alien”]Florida has the same 3 strike law, so why do you think Noelle Bush (Jeb
[quote=“MaPoDoFu”][quote=“Alien”]Florida has the same 3 strike law, so why do you think Noelle Bush (Jeb
That is irrelevent, since the law didn’t exist when she committed her crime, was caught, and was charged. (Best I’ve been able to narrow it down so far is that the law was re-passed at some point in March 2002, well over a month after Noelle’s crime; the legislature had to break it into five separate pieces to satisfy the court’s demand that each bill had to be a “single subject” – as if that ever gets invoked for all the socialist crap that the Democrats pass.)
You lefties just f*cking floor me. You whine and bitch about how someone should be imprisoned for life for trying to bum a couple of Xanax because she is “connected up the wazoo”, then you turn around and demand that anyone who was sentenced under the stricken law must be released (and can’t be tried again because of “double jeopardy”, even if they murdered someone). Meanwhile, you demand Willie Horton get furloughed for weekend rape sprees because he is a disadvantaged and misguided individual who deserves better.
Note that my example of “even if they murdered someone” is real life. Washington state’s Supreme Court struck down a part of the “felony murder” law late last year. As a result, as many as 200 murderers are petitioning to be set free because their convictions occurred under a law that has been struck. At least two murderers had to be charged with manslaughter (three-year sentence, typically) because of it. The law was since re-passed, in exactly the same form, with the caveat added by the legislature that “we really do intend for murderers to be tried for murder, you stupid assholes on the Bench”.
In one of the articles that Alien referred to above,
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … DT0680.DTL
Jeb Bush is quoted as saying:
[quote=“Jeb Bush”]
We love Noelle, but she is an adult, and I respect the role of the courts in carrying out our state’s drug treatment policies."[/quote]
If only you lefties had such respect for the law. . . .
[quote=“MaPoDoFu”]
About Noelle: Trying to buy some Xanax because the poor chickie was freaking out about a job interview hardly qualifies as “robbery, kidnapping, murder”.[/quote]
Yes, yes, yes. But her ‘crimes’ are considered felonies, are they not?
I mean, they would be for anyone else…
But I feel sorry for her and hope she never winds up in prison, especially if her pattern of behaviour continues, as I truly doubt a ‘job interview’ has caused her drug problems. 
So, can you give similar understanding to others in states with 3 strike penalties? Perhaps they have good reasons (freakin out about job interviews, etc) for their crimes too.
interesting nyt article, i wasn’t aware of this issue. it’s reg only
your wish is my command
nytimes.com/2003/11/17/nyreg … MM.html?th
[quote]Questions Rise Over Imprisoning Sex Offenders Past Their Terms
By LAURA MANSNERUS
Published: November 17, 2003
EARNY, N.J.
That is irrelevent, since the law didn’t exist when she committed her crime, was caught, and was charged. (Best I’ve been able to narrow it down so far is that the law was re-passed at some point in March 2002, well over a month after Noelle’s crime; the legislature had to break it into five separate pieces to satisfy the court’s demand that each bill had to be a “single subject” – as if that ever gets invoked for all the socialist crap that the Democrats pass.)
You lefties just f*cking floor me. You whine and bitch about how someone should be imprisoned for life for trying to bum a couple of Xanax because she is “connected up the wazoo”, then you turn around and demand that anyone who was sentenced under the stricken law must be released (and can’t be tried again because of “double jeopardy”, even if they murdered someone). Meanwhile, you demand Willie Horton get furloughed for weekend rape sprees because he is a disadvantaged and misguided individual who deserves better.
Note that my example of “even if they murdered someone” is real life. Washington state’s Supreme Court struck down a part of the “felony murder” law late last year. As a result, as many as 200 murderers are petitioning to be set free because their convictions occurred under a law that has been struck. At least two murderers had to be charged with manslaughter (three-year sentence, typically) because of it. The law was since re-passed, in exactly the same form, with the caveat added by the legislature that “we really do intend for murderers to be tried for murder, you stupid assholes on the Bench”.
In one of the articles that Alien referred to above,
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … DT0680.DTL
Jeb Bush is quoted as saying:
[quote=“Jeb Bush”]
We love Noelle, but she is an adult, and I respect the role of the courts in carrying out our state’s drug treatment policies."[/quote]
If only you lefties had such respect for the law. . . .[/quote]
here we go again with the you this and the you that and the you lefties… you sound like a tape recording.
[quote=“Alien”][quote=“MaPoDoFu”]
About Noelle: Trying to buy some Xanax because the poor chickie was freaking out about a job interview hardly qualifies as “robbery, kidnapping, murder”.[/quote]
Yes, yes, yes. But her ‘crimes’ are considered felonies, are they not?
I mean, they would be for anyone else…
But I feel sorry for her and hope she never winds up in prison, especially if her pattern of behaviour continues, as I truly doubt a ‘job interview’ has caused her drug problems.
So, can you give similar understanding to others in states with 3 strike penalties? Perhaps they have good reasons (freakin out about job interviews, etc) for their crimes too.[/quote]
What “understanding”?? If she had committed a violent felony (rape, kidnapping, murder, etc.) as the Florida statute requires, then IMHO she should be executed just like Ted Bundy was.
I’m not being “understanding”, Alien dear. I am explaining to you that you are being a simp by protesting-too-much that Noelle should be tried under a law that (a) wouldn’t apply to her anyway, and (b) was struck down by the courts during the time of her crime (just as you seem to have wanted it to be, permanently), albeit on a hypertechnicality and for under two months before the Legislature re-passed it by working around that hypertechnicality.
Personally I think that anyone who commits a violent crime (murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc.) should be executed. Understand that.
And you sound like you don’t have a leg to stand on. So what if I’m repetitive – I’m right. 
With the US leading the world (by a large margin) as the country with the greatest percentage of its population behind bars, we’re obviously doing something wrong.
In addition to not sending petty thieves to prison for 50 years, maybe we shouldn’t give such harsh prison sentences for minor drug offenses. More than 20% of those in state prisons and 50% of those in federal prisons are in from drug offenses. Is “getting tough on drugs” doing anything other than supporting the prison industry? Apparently not – the number of prisoners just keeps growing.
Prisoners sentenced for drug offenses constituted the largest group of Federal inmates (55%) in 2001, down from 60% in 1995. . . In 2001, drug law violators comprised 20.4% of all adults serving time in State prisons - 246,100 out of 1,208,700 State prison inmates.
. . . federal spending to incarcerate drug offenders totals nearly $3 Billion a year – $2.525 Billion by the Bureau of Prisons, and $429.4 Million by Federal Prisoner Detention.
The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 686 per 100,000 of the national population . . . more than three-fifths of countries (62.5%) have rates below 150 per 100,000.
According to the Department of Justice, studies of recidivism report that “the amount of time inmates serve in prison does not increase or decrease the likelihood of recidivism, whether recidivism is measured as parole revocation, re-arrest, reconviction, or return to prison.”
After 15 years, the US government’s “War on Drugs” appears to have bogged down in a quagmire of beefed-up arrests and increased prison sentences that have now put about 400,000 people - almost a quarter of the nation’s incarcerated population - behind bars on drug charges.
Last year, national drug czar Barry McCaffrey conceded that the war on drugs has created a “drug gulag” that sends hundreds of thousands of people to prison each year. . . McCaffrey told The Light it makes more sense to spend $8,000 a year to provide an addict with methadone treatment than spending $26,000 a year to lock them up. . .
Still, McCaffrey said the federal government is not ready to recognize voter initiatives to legalize marijuana for medical use or otherwise decriminalize controlled substances. “Federal law is unaffected by local referendums,” the drug czar said. “The law is the same. It is illegal to grow, possess, and smoke marijuana. If this is going to be used as a legalization tool, then I oppose it.”
I’d say do that anyway. Anyone who’s intelligent enough to click on a NYT link is probably already registered. If they’re not, they should be, and should take 30 seconds to do so. Also, it’s free.
Your cut-and-paste is just too long… :?
I’m all for overturning most drug legislation that criminalizes matters where the “lawbreaker” only harms himself. I would make drug abuse a medical problem rather than a criminal issue, while recreational users shouldn’t be bothered at all unless their activities are endangering those around them.
But I’m a hardliner on matters where a victim or someone’s else property is involved. And I don’t care where that puts us on the global incarceration rate index.
Kudos to MaPoDoFu who shows that some here seem to think that only being related to an elected Republican merits a three-strikes-and-you’re-out penalty (and for those few cases, they’re willing to overlook the fact that the law isn’t even technically on the books).
From the NY Times article that daltongang cites:
New Jersey's law is considered one of the strictest, prompted in part by the 1994 rape and murder of a 7-year-old, Megan Kanka, by a neighbor who had served two prison terms for sexually assaulting children.This guy Deaver should never be allowed to see the light of day outside of a strictly controlled environment.Supporters of the law note that most of those committed are repeat offenders, and say they warrant every effort to determine whether they might commit future crimes. As hard as it may be to predict behavior, they say, the alternative is waiting for another rape.
[quote=“MaPoDoFu”]First, Florida’s three-strikes law was struck down prior to 01/25/2002…
Second, if you had bothered to look up the (stricken version of the) statute, you would have found that the (1999) 3-strikes law required that the “strike” under which the criminal is actually forced to serve prison time be a “violent felony”…
About Noelle: Trying to buy some Xanax because the poor chickie was freaking out about a job interview hardly qualifies as “robbery, kidnapping, murder”.[/quote]
Alien, what part of MaPoDoFu’s explanation did you not understand? You do know what adjectives are, don’t you? Not all “felonies” are equal. The 3-strikes law would not have applied to Ms. Bush because the felony she committed was not a VIOLENT felony. Ms. Bush did NOT get off the hook because her daddy is the Gov. She got off the hook, so to speak, because the law was repealed, and in any event, it would not have applied to her as she did not commit the type offense addressed by the law. 
Tigerman.
Excuse my ignorance, but is the same true for California? Is a violent crime required to fulfill the three strikes deal in that state and whatever other state it has been approved?
HG
[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Tigerman.
Excuse my ignorance, but is the same true for California? Is a violent crime required to fulfill the three strikes deal in that state and whatever other state it has been approved?
HG[/quote]
HG,
I’m not familiar with the CA law either… but apparently the CA law does not require that the felony be a violent felony.
Tigerman’s right. In California none of the 3 strikes is required to be a violent crime.
Leandro Andrade was given not one but two sentences of 25 years-to-life for stealing nine children’s videotapes, including “Snow White,” “Cinderella” and “Free Willie 2.” The tapes were worth $153.54 . . .
Andrade got the 25 years doubled for two cases of shoplifting, which became his third and fourth strikes under California’s law. His first two strikes were for home burglaries that were committed back in 1983. Neither involved violence. In fact, Andrade didn’t carry a weapon with him for either burglary.