Amazon.com Widgets

Do you support the "Three Strikes Law" in California?

  • Yes I Do

    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 tree strikes law.

    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.

  • I do not agree with three strike laws..

    I don’t think the three strikes penalties are effective in reducing crime. Three strikes laws are politically popular, as the general public wants to hear repeat offenders will be locked up for a long time. Initially, these laws appear to provide a sense of justice, however they are flawed and/or limited in many ways.

    A study by Kovandzic and colleagues found that states with three strikes penalties experienced no significant reduction in crime rates during the twenty years the researchers analyzed. A different study found that the counties in California that vigorously and strictly enforced the state’s three strikes laws did not experience a decline in any crime category compared to counties that applied it less frequently.

    A study by researchers from the RAND Corporation found that over 5,000 defendants were convicted under the California initiative one year after it was implemented, of which eighty-four percent of two-strike convictions, and almost 77% of three-strikes convictions stemmed from nonviolent drug or property crimes. All crimes warrant some penalty; however an extended period in prison is inappropriate in some third strike cases.

    Roughly 90% of criminal cases are resolved via plea bargaining. Three strikes laws result in less plea bargaining, especially in cases in which the accused has two prior convictions, which in turn will notably tax the court system. As evidence, a study by the Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy found that three-strike legislation in the 22 states they studied resulted in clogged court systems and crowded prisons. Our prisons are overcrowded, governments are strapped for cash, and we can’t afford to incarcerate individuals for longer periods of time.

    We must also consider the risk to police officers and witnesses in jurisdictions that have three-strikes laws, as two-strike offenders may take very drastic evasive actions to escape apprehension a third time. The aforementioned study by the Campaign for an Effective Policy found that two-time felons were encouraged to take dramatic risks to avoid capture for a third-strike offense. Further, researchers Marvell and Moody found that three-strikes laws increased the incidence of homicide in the areas they studied, as two-strikes offenders attempting to avoid apprehension were more motivated to kill victims and witnesses.

    Three strikes laws seek to minimize judicial and prosecutorial discretion; however prosecutors, in some instances, may file a motion to dismiss one or more prior convictions that would otherwise count as strikes and prosecutors may also decide to charge similar crimes as misdemeanors or felonies, which could or could not result in another strike depending on state law.

    We must remain aware of the fact that popularity and effectiveness are two distinct terms. Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it is effective, and vice versa. I want to live a life free from criminal victimization and I want to feel secure in my home and in society, just like everyone else. I realize, however, that irrational, legislatively defined sanctions such as three strikes penalties are not the solution to society’s crime problems.

  • I do not agree with three strike laws..

    I don’t think the three strikes penalties are effective in reducing crime. Three strikes laws are politically popular, as the general public wants to hear repeat offenders will be locked up for a long time. Initially, these laws appear to provide a sense of justice, however they are flawed and/or limited in many ways.

    A study by Kovandzic and colleagues found that states with three strikes penalties experienced no significant reduction in crime rates during the twenty years the researchers analyzed. A different study found that the counties in California that vigorously and strictly enforced the state’s three strikes laws did not experience a decline in any crime category compared to counties that applied it less frequently.

    A study by researchers from the RAND Corporation found that over 5,000 defendants were convicted under the California initiative one year after it was implemented, of which eighty-four percent of two-strike convictions, and almost 77% of three-strikes convictions stemmed from nonviolent drug or property crimes. All crimes warrant some penalty; however an extended period in prison is inappropriate in some third strike cases.

    Roughly 90% of criminal cases are resolved via plea bargaining. Three strikes laws result in less plea bargaining, especially in cases in which the accused has two prior convictions, which in turn will notably tax the court system. As evidence, a study by the Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy found that three-strike legislation in the 22 states they studied resulted in clogged court systems and crowded prisons. Our prisons are overcrowded, governments are strapped for cash, and we can’t afford to incarcerate individuals for longer periods of time.

    We must also consider the risk to police officers and witnesses in jurisdictions that have three-strikes laws, as two-strike offenders may take very drastic evasive actions to escape apprehension a third time. The aforementioned study by the Campaign for an Effective Policy found that two-time felons were encouraged to take dramatic risks to avoid capture for a third-strike offense. Further, researchers Marvell and Moody found that three-strikes laws increased the incidence of homicide in the areas they studied, as two-strikes offenders attempting to avoid apprehension were more motivated to kill victims and witnesses.

    Three strikes laws seek to minimize judicial and prosecutorial discretion; however prosecutors, in some instances, may file a motion to dismiss one or more prior convictions that would otherwise count as strikes and prosecutors may also decide to charge similar crimes as misdemeanors or felonies, which could or could not result in another strike depending on state law.

    We must remain aware of the fact that popularity and effectiveness are two distinct terms. Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it is effective, and vice versa. I want to live a life free from criminal victimization and I want to feel secure in my home and in society, just like everyone else. I realize, however, that irrational, legislatively defined sanctions such as three strikes penalties are not the solution to society’s crime problems.

  • America and their lack of common sense.

    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???

  • Three Strikes Bad

    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?

  • I do not support the three strikes law.

    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.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.