The Instigator
alicattt
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
magpie
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points

is the three strikes law a good idea?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,124 times Debate No: 117
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (12)

 

alicattt

Con

it destroys the flexibility of the judges. the reason we have judges, juries, and lawyers is so that they can give a reasonable and fair punishment. if we have the three strikes law we will have a "one size fits all" type of punishment which takes away the flexibility of judges, juries and lawyers
magpie

Pro

Jack (ficticious person) has committed two violent felonies. He is well aware that a conviction on another crime will mean twenty five years in prison. He goes ahead and commits another crime, anyway. (In actual fact most criminals commit many more crimes than they are ever indicted for, let alone convicted of.) So our friend, Jack must be a habitual and very dangerous individual in light of his complete disregard for consequences. If he is allowed to reenter society after some short sentence, it is statistically unlikely that the judge or jury members or their families will fall victim to Jack. But someone will. If you don't care that it might be you, so be it. But don't ask me or my loved ones to suffer for your misplaced pity.
There are people in this world that don't deserve to be among the rest of us. Jack is one of them. Save your sympathy for his victims.
Debate Round No. 1
alicattt

Con

alicattt forfeited this round.
magpie

Pro

One frequent argument against Three Strikes law is that a person convicted of a minor crime - i.e. stealing a bicycle - can receive a long sentence, perhaps 25 years. But one must consider the primary intent of this law: that habitual criminals with - in the case of California - two convictions for violent felonies, having committed another crime, are likely to continue to run afoul of the law. Remember, these criminals know that another conviction will result in a lengthy confinement. They could give up their lives of crime, or they could move to another state, presumably one without Three Strikes. They have done neither.
Another, voiced by my opponent is that it takes away the value of lawyers, juries and judges. Well that is a bogus argument. The lawyers have done their part before the juries deliberate. The jury has convicted. The judge is deprived of his/her power to supersede the will of the people. Boo hoo!
A third argument is the cost of incarceration. Try comparing to the cost of crime.
Debate Round No. 2
alicattt

Con

it destroys the flexibilty of the judges. the reason we have judges and lawyers is so that they can decide a fair punishment. not all crimes deserve the same punishment. and you cant argue against that.
magpie

Pro

Alicat keeps insisting that judges and lawyers must do their jobs. It's getting old. Stating and restating a tired old mantra is not debate. Let me offer an analogy: If you have a TV that fails over and over,again. How many times must you pay the repair man before you decide to just throw it away? I'm not suggesting that we throw these criminals away - just put them away. If they are incapable of joining civilized society then it is our job to put them away. We the people decide what laws should be. The judges ae charged with excuting the law according to our specifications. Alicat, if you have something to say, please say it.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ian5463 9 years ago
ian5463
both of you guys are totally right in everything you said, but this is just how the system works. yea, just because someone commited three felonies doesnt nessicarily mean they need to spend the rest of their life in prison. Unfortunatly its impossible to look at everyone case by case and decide if the crimes being commited are diserving of a life sentence. not every felony is murder rape and car jacking, there are plenty of non violent offenders that kept screwing up. im not trying to say they should only get a slap on the wrist just because they didnt kill someone, but it's too hard and would cost too much and take too much time to go through these cases and decide if these people really need to spend the rest of thier lives behind bars. thats just the way the system works sometimes, it sucks, but when you're trying to take care of 300million people at once, corners get cut and some people just get screwed
Posted by Csavage472 9 years ago
Csavage472
Dear Magpie,

I voted for you b/c (1) you executed a BETTER argument and (2) I PERSONALLY agree.

However, I am just commenting that you were a bit INSENSITIVE to the young lady in your opening argument. In other words, you went TOO emotional and that is perhaps why she didn't respond. Thanks and take care.

best,
Csavage472
Posted by HatedvsLoved 9 years ago
HatedvsLoved
I would debate you but I agree with you. Sorry.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by cmrnprk07 8 years ago
cmrnprk07
alicatttmagpieTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
alicatttmagpieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Schnozberry 9 years ago
Schnozberry
alicatttmagpieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
alicatttmagpieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by or8560 9 years ago
or8560
alicatttmagpieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
alicatttmagpieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
alicatttmagpieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
alicatttmagpieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
alicatttmagpieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
alicatttmagpieTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03