Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, it should be.

    The only thing the three strikes law shows me is that people aren't allowed to make mistakes more than 2 times--even if they are stupid mistakes. For example, if a person it busted with a little bit of marijuana three times and they go to jail for the rest of their lives, that is a disgrace.

  • No It Shouldn't

    The only think I've really seen the three strike law be used for is DUI and DWI cases, although I know it's been used in other areas. I think it works good as it gives a definitive punishment on the third strike, whereas one could say they are given a chance a few times. I think this method gives a person some opportunity to live an upstanding life but still punishes those who adversely affect society on a regular basis.

  • Not at all

    No, I do not think that it would be a good idea at all to get rid of the three strikes rule, since it does a lof of good for the nation, and it does a lot of good when dealing with the criminals of this country, who need to learn.

  • No, the three strikes law is fair.

    I do not think that the three strike laws should be banished with in a state like California. It is a good way to help prevent serial offenders from thinking of committing crimes regardless of how serious or petty it is. I think the law is fair because good citizens don't worry about breaking laws.

  • Not eliminated, just clarified.

    The three strikes law should not be eliminated. It should, however, be revised so that we're sending away people for truly serious crimes. Right now, most states with three strikes laws can send someone away for life merely for jaywalking or speeding. Misdemeanors should not cost anyone their liberty for life.


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