Hi there!
I'm curious about something. What do you guys think of the Three Strikes Law? That's the law that guarantees at least 25 years in prison for people convicted of a third felony. The third felony doesn't have to necessarily be violent, but the first two must be. So, a person convicted of rape and burglary who has served their time may very well be put away for decades after a shoplifting conviction.
If you think that the law is too harsh, would you feel differently if the third crime was also a violent or very serious crime? Do you think that such prison terms should be reserved for violent offenders exclusively or do you think that crimes such as burglary of an empty home should also qualify? How about drug dealers? Should they be given 3 strikes? Or, do you think that when it comes to violent crimes 3 strikes is one or two strikes too many? Do you think that the judge should have more discretion when it comes to crime? Should crime be judged on a case by case basis or can we lump criminals all together as one large group of undesirables?
Thank you in advance for taking the time to comment.
Meg
I'm curious about something. What do you guys think of the Three Strikes Law? That's the law that guarantees at least 25 years in prison for people convicted of a third felony. The third felony doesn't have to necessarily be violent, but the first two must be. So, a person convicted of rape and burglary who has served their time may very well be put away for decades after a shoplifting conviction.
If you think that the law is too harsh, would you feel differently if the third crime was also a violent or very serious crime? Do you think that such prison terms should be reserved for violent offenders exclusively or do you think that crimes such as burglary of an empty home should also qualify? How about drug dealers? Should they be given 3 strikes? Or, do you think that when it comes to violent crimes 3 strikes is one or two strikes too many? Do you think that the judge should have more discretion when it comes to crime? Should crime be judged on a case by case basis or can we lump criminals all together as one large group of undesirables?
Thank you in advance for taking the time to comment.
Meg
posted by Meg Kelso | 11:50 AM
4 Comments:
Here is a comment from Coconut Commando that I may have accidentally rejected instead of publishing, mea culpa:
Here's an idea, don't break the law in the first place! The other, states should take the fine example set by Sheriff Joe out of Arizona. Prison is not supposed to be a nice place! His way of running a prison should be the standard for all to follow. Here is the article on hi.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona) is doing it RIGHT!! He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them. He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights. Cut off all but "G" movies. He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.
He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel. When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.
He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value. When the inmates complained, he told them.....this is a good one......"This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."
He bought Newt Gingrich's lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place. You have to love this guy!!
More on the AZ Sheriff:
With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports:
About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to
their government-issued pink boxer shorts. On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before. Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks. "It feels like we are in a furnace," said James Zanzot, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1 1/2 years. "It's inhumane."
Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is
not one bit sympathetic He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and
they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes... so shut your damned mouths."
for the record the highest temp in phoenix az was 122 in the 1980's I remember trying to fry eggs on the sidewalk
I definately think violent harm causing death of permanent injury justifies it..
You know...this was quite interesting. I was worried about being cold...I never thought about being hot. How hideous. Right now, I hate hot. But, in about 7 months, I'll be hating hot. I have no clue why the Creator created such unGodly extremes. I have to admit, I did find this amusing and I did get a kick out of it as did most people, I would imagine. But, I have to add that while certain criminals absolutely deserve that treatment, there may be some who don't. I don't have a problem with some of it for all criminals...it shouldn't be the Ritz Carlton...but everyone must admit that there are different levels of criminals...wait a minute, I have to break up with someone for good...I'll be right back.
Post a Comment
<< Home