• Yes, the three-strikes laws should be repealed.

    The three-strikes laws are unjust due to the lack of judicial review upon sentencing when a third crime is committed. Justice can not prevail with mandatory sentencing, justice prevails when a person is given a sentence that takes into account all aspects of the case presented, regardless of past offenses. For example, it is unjust when a person ends up with a life sentence after being caught with a small amount of pot for the third time.

  • Yes, it shoud be

    The reason the three strikes law should be repealed is because if someone has three minor offences, especially if they are non violent, there is no way they should spend the rest of their lives in prison. Sorry, that is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard, and it should be done away with.

  • The three strike laws should be repealed

    It is my opinion that the current three-strike laws should be repealed. These laws allow for non-violent offenders to do maximum amounts of jail time for negligible charges. In the long run these criminals end up causing the state more money by being incarcerated as opposed to being put on probation.

  • Disabling is important.

    No, three-strike laws should not be repealed, because by the time a person has committed three felonies, they are better off in jail for life than out on the streets where they can hurt themselves and hurt others. No person is caught for the only things they have ever done, so by the time the person has three felonies, they have likely done many terrible things.

  • No the 3-strike law is fair.

    I do not think that the three-strike laws should be repealed. I think that the three-strike laws are more than fair. They help to deter a lot of repeat offenders from wanting to commit another crime regardless of how small they are in fear of being penalized by a strice but fair law.

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