• 100% yes, It should never exist

    This law makes little to no sense as someone who commuted even minor non-violent crimes like 30 years ago when he was a stupid kid makes some kind of error that lands him in front of a judge again like jaywalking and that person spends the rest of his life in prison is the dumbest thing I can imagine in my life it just makes no sense what so ever and if the person is getting his 3. Rd sentence for something bigger then what prevents him from committing as big of a crime he can if he gets caught he will go to prison for like no matter what how does that prevents him from murder or anything more serious the smoking a joint

  • It should be.

    The recitivism rate for individuals is already at a staggering 76%! Not to mention, There are individuals who want to go to prison for free clothing and food. Prisoners even get weights, Television, And books. It's the tax payers who suffer ultimately from the three strike rule. I believe it's time for the United States to look at how other countries successfully run ther penitentiary systems.

  • The punishment should fit the crime

    Punish a criminal for the crime he committed, don't throw him in prison for the rest of his life because it was his third felony. People get life in prison for shoplifting 3 times where the only violence was pushing someone out of the way without causing any injuries.

    If someone is going to commit his third felony, he has nothing to lose and will murder any cop in sight if it gives him the slightest chance to not be caught because he'll go to prison for the rest of his life regardless.

    Posted by: Naud
  • It should be eliminated

    My Father was a dumb teenager who got 2 felonies in his twenties and not only did he miss out on my life but served his time. Since then he has gotten an amazing job and is a home owner, recetly his daughter was being beaten by her current boyfriend and my dad punched him. The cops were called and now he is facing his 3rd strike. A hard working father and grandpa should not be given life in prison for defending his daughter

  • 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.