I believe the Three Strike Law is a sound law with the exception of those who are picked up and charged for providing drugs. When a person commits other crimes like burglary, rape, and other crimes that include victims the Three Strikes Law helps remove repeat offenders from society, which in turn makes it safer.
I support the three strikes law in California. The three strikes law gives citizens he opportunity to make mistakes but to also learn from the mistakes so they do not make them again. Other states that punish on the first offense do not allow the offenders to learn and this may throw their life in a downward spiral. This is why I support the 3 strikes rule.
Why warn the criminals with a three strike law. From a first person point of view it is just going to make the bad criminals, or the slippery ones, more aware of what they are doing and they are going to be cautious and not get caught where the other people don't even think about that law or there other criminal record background, they get locked up for life for like stealing a pair of socks. Like really man?? Were paying for these mofos to live for free cuz this ni**a stole a pair of socks???
The question is what should we do about recidivism? In California, the "Three Strikes Law" causes some individuals to serve the cruel and unusual punishment of life in prison without parole for 3 mistakes. Then we, the people, get to feed, clothe and house the inmate during this lifelong incarceration. Shouldn't we find a better way to deal with these people than paying for their incarceration?
The three strikes law is against a true system of justice. Any 'mandatory minimum' sentence imposed removes the judges ability to actually judge a case. Some cases do not require a heavy sentence. The three strikes law is mandatory even if the third offense is tax related and 30 years later. This is not in the interest of justice, its in the interest of the prison system.