Three strikes law

[stormer94]

You know, I never thought about it that way, " I have shady friends"... I don't know that I'd call some of the guys I've worked with shady... "STUPID" comes to mind though. ;) Judge says "don't do this". you do it anyway when he did you a favor and let you go. GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL, you dumb-arse. (shaking my head in amazement at the level of stupidity)

That maybe true, but it's guys I worked with, and I didn't hang out with them after work. The reason? I knew they'd likely screw up and "I" would be associated with them. Bar fights, drunk and disorderly DUI, I don't need that, nobody does. And, I'd have to answer to the real judge, and I ain't talking God here, I'm talking my WIFE!!! :scream: Much more powerful than God, and able to inflict much more earthly pain. You married guys will back me up on this I'm sure.

The good news is that I have not had to bail anybody out of jail in over a year. Although this guy I barely knew (I worked with his wife 10 years ago)called me around Christmas and was trying to beg $80 off me so he could bond out of jail. Said he had some unpaid parking tickets and such and just boned them and wound up in the pokey. I later found out from the jailer he was in for some domestic stuff and bail was $3000 and he must have been to the last $80 and reached "S" in the phone book. I met the guy at a Christmas party 10 years ago. He was a scumbag wife beater looking kinda guy, I didn't like him then, and the 1% that might have tolerated him went south when he tried to play me for $80.

The best way to avoid the 3 strikes thing and Jail is to stay out of the gears of justice. I think it's pretty easy. And I've seen enough of it to know that it is indeed easy to stay out of jail.

Bummer about your bud.

 

[BSWIFT]

Originally posted by LongTime
Lots of unassailable statistics prove that a very, very small number of repeat offenders commit a huge percentage of our crimes. So yes, if you find one of these habitual criminals, lock them up for good -- the benefits are proven.

p.s. the drunk driver who nailed me was an 18 time loser with 5 prior DUI's (approx.). So there's a perfect example of "drunk driving? Come on . . . don't lock him up for life" if you are so inclined. But I know better. I want him OFF THE STREETS!

My apologies. The stats are NOT accurate. I should have qualified them as my observations. Nonetheless, it shows a real correlation of crimes and the portion of the population that commit them (actual or not). I learned my lesson in '83 with the legal system. ONE NIGHT in the County INN was all I needed. No reason for rehab(other than don't put myself in the situation). All of these opinions are relevant in the overall picture of the 3 strikes law. Lawmakers undoubtly weighed the possiblilities of the scenerios. The real problem is Habitual Criminals. Daryl Strawberry comes to mind. His crime, repeated substance abuse and pocession. He has been afforded many breaks that people of lesser public status would NOT get. His crimes were non violent but are felonies nonetheless. Did rehab help him? I'll just have to watch the sports report to find out. I myself favor Truth in Sentencing. Not the 80% rule, 100% rule. Non violent criminals should receive conseling and rehab, work release and MAYBE time off for exemplear(sp?) behavior. Sorry if you dissagree with my opinion but "do the crime, do the time", no sympathies from me.

 

[mx547]

Originally posted by kingriz1
Last Sat nite some ***hole(s) broke into my mattress store and took my computer system
But I dont think they are going to go to prison and come out better people.

when they get out, will you give them a job in your store to help rehabilitate them? be honest now.

i thought not.

 

[kingriz1]

Actually,

Depending on their age I might give them a job. No one was hurt. Now if someone would have shot me then probably not.

If we dont Rehab them then we are setting ourselves up for more crime.

OK mx547, which way do you think is better. Now dont go off without thinking about it. Every action has a reaction. A great society is proactive not reactive.

What do you think. Take a man and lock him up and rehab him. Take away his freedoms and show him there is a better way.

Or do you think , we are better off putting him in a violent cage. Where you have to fight to survive. Leave him there for 3 years and then lets let him back out. Little chance of a job, no money, cant even get an apartment and now he has to adjust back to life where when someone bumps into you it is not an assault that you have to defend violently in order to avoid future confrontations. That is how it is in State prison. Now humans are creatures of habit and its gonna take a while to readjust. A halfway house with anger management classes is not gonna cut it.

Which one do you want in your society?

Should people that break the law go to prison? YES!!

Should repeat offenders be punished more severely? YES!

But 2 times and a parole violation for something stupid should not get you locked up for life.

Should prison be a place where a man is at risk for losing his life over a sandwich? NO!

Remember we pay for their time in prison with our cash. The less people in jail the more cash we will have. More cash is more bikes etc., etc.

 

[mx547]

i think criminals are criminals because they choose to be. i believe whether or not we are a proactive society is beside the point. in a proactive society, they wouldn't do anything to get in prison in the first place. i have absolutely nothing against rehabilitating prisoners. it's just that i think that they have to want to be rehabilitated and for the most part, i don't believe that you can "make" them that way. how do you propose to do away with the "violent cage"? making the guards and wardens completely responsible is impractical and just plain wrong. in my opinion, that is like holding the local police department responsible because your store got robbed.

 

[longtime]

Originally posted by kingriz1
I firmly believe prison should not be punishment . . . . NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT!

Seeing as police are not supposed to punish, either, following up on your firm belief would seem to lead to an odd scenario. No punishment? No deterrance. No deterrance? Watch anarchy -- followed by vigilantism.

Originally posted by kingriz1
We use Joshua Webber here in Dallas for a criminal atttorney. He is by far the best defense lawyer (state cases) that I have ever seen. He gets you off when your guilty.

Well, there's something you can be proud of.

Originally posted by kingriz1
As long as they are not Rapist or Child molesters I say they deserve a fair shot at straightening out their lives.

Given the current context, you seem to be saying that criminals shouldn't be locked up for extended periods for other crimes even if they do them repeatedly. But my "DUI guy" had 18 tries. Of course, not being a child molester or rapist, he couldn't hurt anybody. Nahh . . . so long as all of his 100 mph drunk flights from the police come to rest against a full sized pickup, with no children in it, we should be fine!! Same for repeat burglars -- nobody ever gets hurt when burglaries go wrong. :silly:

Hey BSwift -- actually, I wasn't arguing your statistics -- they may not have been perfectly accurate, but they do reflect a true picture of recidivists and crime. I was agreeing with you.

 

[a454elk]

Ah, the balance between locking them up or giving them probation. Remember this everyone, a person with no criminal past or convictions will have a very high chance of not seeing the inside of a state prison for what they did. Now, murder and other violent crimes or drug trafficking will get you time behind bars. Do you think that since they only got caught twice for a total of 2 strikes, that that is all they have ever done? Do you know how many times they were arrested that the strike was never pursued due to weak circumstances?

I think that in peoples minds, they say, "Hey, he's only done 2 things, why make it so bad for his 3rd offense?" Repeat offenders are just that, they never stop crookin, but are just caught a couple of times.

Now I do agree that a minor offense shouldn't put a first time offender in prison, (see first paragraph about first offenders). It wouldn't happen anyway. Putting a car thief behind bars, unfortunately, lets him learn some new tactics while there. Riz, you are concerned for the safety of people in custody. Well, to a certain degree, yes. But, how about stopping all the free and open time they get while in the state or federal hotel they stay in. Let's put these guys to hard labor like the Sheriff in Arizona or the Sheriff out in N.C. (Hagey). Cut out all the work out equipment and tv's. Make it a big inconvienence to be there, not something they look forward to.

Do you know what the average fight time an inmate can sustain verses a law enforcement officer is? I do, it's 15-20 minutes verses 3-5. Is that scary, you're damn right it is. All they do is practice. And so do we but not to the extent that they do. I don't think that rehabilitation is the answer to ALL criminals, some don't and won't take to it. They are instututionalized, that is their life, they know nothing else. The falacy that a first time offender gets thrown in with the killers is a joke. A first time murderer and drug lord will for sure, but do you think that is their first go at it. No.

Riz, you think that sending him to prison and taking his freedom away actually scares him into not doing it again, yeah right. I'm sorry but for the hardcore guys, it's like sending them back to a class reunion. Let's make it so they don't want to go back. I'm not sure how to do all this exactly but we can start by getting rid of all the privelages.
Elk

 

[stormer94]

a454elk,

I read somewhere that for everytime you get caught doing something, there are 10 times (on average) that you didn't for the same offence.
this was told to me as it relates to traffic offences. I would bet it's similar to other crimes.

"Honest officer, I never go this fast normally"... :p

 

[a454elk]

:)

 

[BunduBasher]

Three strikes law
So what do you think, does it work, should we keep it? To be honest, I'm not sure if it is doing what it is supposed to

Back to the issue at hand. You do make a fair point, a guy who has done non violent crimes, has two strikes, and is faced with his third offense, may resort to resisting arrest violently, this puts police officers and the public at risk.

LongTime would like to put a habitual DUI offender behind bars for life !, makes no sense to me, how about 5 years, say 10, what about 15, when does the punishment become excessive. Life without parole gives you no alternative. Should this guy be put away, what incentive has he to clean up, be a good prisoner. There is none !. You think it right to take away any alternative there is.

Where there is violent crime, a danger to the public, a serious offender, one for who there is little or no hope, should be put away for life. Should a habitual petty thief be put away for life, I don't think so. If however violence has been involved, weapons, assault etc, then these should all factor in. 3 strikes and you are out is extremely arbitrary. The idea is good, the execution needs to be worked on. A points system would be better, 1 point for petty theft, 50 for armed robbery, get a grand total of 100 and you have earned your one way ticket. in this scenario, two violent crimes and you are out, for the petty thief, it will take a little longer, the end result, you still put away habitual criminals. Add to that an incentive, minus 5 points for every clean year, or say rather, 10 clean years and you get minus 50, another 10 clean years and your slate is wiped clean.

 

[longtime]

Originally posted by BunduBasher
LongTime would like to put a habitual DUI offender behind bars for life!

A). I didn't say that, Alan. Once again . . . oh, nevermind.

B). Even assuming the point -- Heaven forbid!!! "Habitual" is the key word. Please keep talking, so people can hear your point, in your own words. Personally, I think that people that "habitually" send pieces of steel that weigh 3,000 or more pounds through residential districts, wondering where they will come to rest, should be kept from doing so. Seeing as, in my particular case, they'd already taken his car, his license, and his insurance, seems to me that the only way is incarceration.

Originally posted by BunduBasher
Should this guy be put away, what incentive has he to clean up, be a good prisoner. There is none !.

I don't care if he's a good prisoner. I want him deprived of the ability to kill innocents, which he doesn't seem to concerned with, right now (or at any time during the past several years). If he's a bad prisoner, put him where he can't hurt others.

Originally posted by BunduBasher
Where there is violent crime, a danger to the public, a serious offender, one for who there is little or no hope, should be put away for life.

I thought that's what I was talking about? Is this just going to be a personal thing, Alan? :silly:

 

[longtime]

By the way, Alan, in an earlier post on this thread you challenged those on the other side of you to personalize the subject:

"I always believe in applying justice as you would to a family member, be it your father, brother, child etc. I can bet if it were a family member about to be put away for life your position may change some ?!"

Well, I'd ask you to do the same. Your child would be every bit as dead if hit by a drunk driver or a different type of murderer.

BTW -- I think that the "accidental" dui killer is like the "accidental" gun killer -- when you insert the word "habitual". That is -- most laws are written in blood. Someone got killed once by a New Year's Eve bullet fired in celebration into the sky in a crowded area. Therefore, even though the odds may be slim of hurting someone, and it's not necessarily Charles Manson doing it, it is VERY illegal to fire your gun into the air in an urban environment. It, like drunk driving, is simply too perilous to the wellbeing of others for society to allow. If someone did get caught firing a gun eight times, therefore, sometimes resulting in injury or property damage -- even though somewhere along the way we had taken away his right to own a firearam, and had therefore had had to borrow / steal one, I would bet you'd be a little perturbed if it was your young'un who caught the knuckelehead's "accidental" bullet on his nineteenth free pass. Well, I think you'd be equally pissed if a multi-repeat-offender, who, rather than shooting into the air every year, drove at 100mph while drunk through residential areas, ran over your kid while drunk, after having been let go several times with simple slaps on the wrist. Do you accept your own, "think-of-it-personally-with-a-family-member" challenge?

 

[BunduBasher]

Is this just going to be a personal thing, Alan?

No, nothing personal, read my posts from the beginning of this thread, and you will see what my argument is all about. Personal to you maybe ?!

I didn't say that, Alan. Once again . . . oh, nevermind.

Are these not your exact words !

p.s. the drunk driver who nailed me was an 18 time loser with 5 prior DUI's (approx.). So there's a perfect example of "drunk driving? Come on . . . don't lock him up for life" if you are so inclined. But I know better. I want him OFF THE STREETS!

I guess I misunderstood you.

You really are a spin doctor, my argument is on the side of reasonableness, nothing else.

If I was in a wreck and a habitual criminal was responsible, I would expect justice, if someone had been killed, then yes, let the law take its course. Your argument is frivolous to say the least.

Habitual" is the key word. Please keep talking, so people can hear your point, in your own words

And that is the key isn't it, however, there is a difference between a habitual muderer, and a habitual DUI.

Next time, how about quoting the base of my argument in context.

3 strikes and you are out is extremely arbitrary. The idea is good, the execution needs to be worked on. A points system would be better ... the end result, you still put away habitual criminals

This is my argument, nothing more, nothing less. why make more of it. ?

In your (LongTimes) case, AJ's too, no doubt these guys may have hit the 100 point mark long ago, and would have been put away for life, and so it should be. On the other hand, if a guy has two priors committed 20 years ago, and is a father, family man etc, should he be put away for life on his 3rd strike - NO thus the 3 strike rule is ARBITRARY

I'll say no more ...

BTW, I would really like to hear a454elk's thoughts on why it is not working, what can be done to improve the law, what is his perspective as a police officer. What were his reasons for starting this thread. ?

 

[kingriz1]

BTW, I would really like to hear a454elk's thoughts on why it is not working, what can be done to improve the law, what is his perspective as a police officer.

I am also interested in what Elk has to say on this.

I understand Longtimes point of view too. A drunk driver is dangerous. Just a matter of time before he kills someone. He has been warned time and time again. Just to repeat. But life is too much. 1-2-5-10-20 years progessively for each offense.

Elk I am sure will tell you. Repeat offenders would decline if there was a proper rehab system. I am not saying they will all become angels, but lets lock them up not get them killed!

"? making the guards and wardens completely responsible is impractical and just plain wrong. in my opinion, QUOTE]

Not at all wrong!! The state takes them into custody. They should be responsible for the safety of the prisoners. I dont know why someone has not sued yet.

I agree that lets make them work. Federal prison is like a hotel . State prison is a jacked up place. The activity and the TV is for psychological reasons. You would drive a man to insanity if he was just put in a hole. As creatures we have to have interaction and release.

 

[longtime]

"Frivolous," Alan? Which part is frivolous? Spinning? Right. :silly:

It's becoming clear -- if I said the Earth was round you'd argue the point (then complain if I held you to your comments that it was flat). I'm done with you -- please do me the same courtesy.

 

[BunduBasher]

BTW -- I think that the "accidental" dui killer is like the "accidental" gun killer -- when you insert the word "habitual". That is -- most laws are written in blood. Someone got killed once by a New Year's Eve bullet fired in celebration into the sky in a crowded area. Therefore, even though the odds may be slim of hurting someone, and it's not necessarily Charles Manson doing it, it is VERY illegal to fire your gun into the air in an urban environment. It, like drunk driving, is simply too perilous to the wellbeing of others for society to allow. If someone did get caught firing a gun eight times, therefore, sometimes resulting in injury or property damage -- even though somewhere along the way we had taken away his right to own a firearam, and had therefore had had to borrow / steal one, I would bet you'd be a little perturbed if it was your young'un who caught the knuckelehead's "accidental" bullet on his nineteenth free pass. Well, I think you'd be equally pissed if a multi-repeat-offender, who, rather than shooting into the air every year, drove at 100mph while drunk through residential areas, ran over your kid while drunk, after having been let go several times with simple slaps on the wrist. Do you accept your own, "think-of-it-personally-with-a-family-member" challenge?

Frivolous (see tirade above) - yes, because you fail to argue the point and wish to confuse the issue. You have yet to debate the issue, or have anything meaningless to contribute ie. the 3 strike law ! - yes, you were hit by a habitual DUI, no one died, you want him off the street before he kills someone, unfortunately the law will not put away someone for life in this regard, get over it. (please read my final paragraph, this will make it very clear to you where I stand on this issue before responding )

It's becoming clear -- if I said the Earth was round you'd argue the point (then complain if I held you to your comments that it was flat)..

More meaningless spin - I have stuck to my point, stated my position, have in fact stated that I Do favor 'getting habitual' criminals off the street. Have I stated otherwise ?!, no, I think not. You wish to make this personal, in fact this has nothing to do with you, or your point of view. I think you wish to make more of this than there really is to make of it.

I'm done with you -- please do me the same courtesy.

good for you, this was never about you. This was about the issue at hand.

Get caught in a lie, and you toss your toys. Same old same old LongTime, you wish to turn it around, make more of the issue, to deflect away from your inconsistencies.

Why PM me this garbage

Let it go
I know whose water you're carrying . . . some day you'll see that you were mistaken -- for several reasons.

And when I let you know I have no idea what you are talking about,

LongTime, I have no idea what you are talking about, please read my post entirely to get the point, especially the issue of a points based system, and not an arbitary 3 strikes and you are out.

you attack me on the board without explaining.

What's the deal, I don't get it. There is no good guy, bad guy issue at stake here, we are just discussing some ideas, some point of view, our different take on a fairly contentious topic.

If you care to read my entire posts, you will indeed see that I do see your point of view. In case you missed it, I will restate my last statement again:

In your (LongTimes) case, AJ's too, no doubt these guys may have hit the 100 point mark long ago (if there was a points system in place), and would have been put away for life, and so it should be. On the other hand, if a guy has two priors committed 20 years ago, and is a father, family man etc, should he be put away for life on his 3rd strike - NO thus the 3 strike rule is ARBITRARY

Aiyayaai :ugg:

 

[BSWIFT]

This may be a good time to AGGREE to DISAGREE.:D

 

[mx547]

Originally posted by BunduBasher


if a guy has two priors committed 20 years ago, and is a father, family man etc, should he be put away for life on his 3rd strike - NO

why should a guy with a family have a lesser sentence than a single man with no children? does that make him less guilty?

 

[a454elk]

Bundu and all here, I would love to give the perfect answer to this problem. I guess if I could, I'd be more than just a peace officer! I started this thread because of the recent challenges of the 3 strike law. I have personally be involved in 3 strike cases where the last strike is autotheft. I do know that sicnce these guys are balancing on the last of 3 strikes, it makes things just a little more tense, for all involved. I have also seen DA's that are afraid to go for the 3rd strike because of all the work involved. It's not easy to get the last strike, they usually all go to the trial stage. Why not, they have nothing to lose, right?

What I can tell you from my point of view is that there are times for discretion and times for the hammer to fall. I don't believe that there is a clear cut, go for the 3rd strike no matter what, situation. I also know that 90+% of these guys are just unlucky and getting caught for something stupid. They are NOT getting caught for some more serious crimes, even though they may be on 2 strikes already. I do believe that HABITUAL is definately the word of the day. Like I said before, does a one time, law breaker get the hammer dropped on him. No. These habitual guys/gals are just running the odds of getting caught. They do this stuff all the time, it is a way of life.

The guy who hasn't done a thing for 20 years and is a family man and job holder is either the majority that DOES learn from what he did or he's really really good and doesn't get caught.

There are two groups of people, those that learn and those that don't care. The word discretion then comes to mind. I know our system doesn't work like it should but it should also not be discarded totally. A point system might be an idea but then like I said, they still aren't getting caught for what they do the other 99% of the time. I think by making it extremely inconvienient to go to prison and a place you DON'T want to go back to, would help alot. Also, people that "get off" due to a technicality should also be tossed. Did he do it or not? That's the question, not, when did you read him his rights. People already know what their rights are, reading them before you asked them what happened is rediculous. I know it's the law but that's my opinion.

I didn't mean for you guys to go at each other, we all have different opinions and experiences, that's what makes us human. I feel we can put here what we think and live by and others should be able to understand that we all don't think alike.

Elk

 

[longtime]

Now it's "get caught in a lie" and "inonsistencies" (Find one, *******, before you post that crap -- hey, you just did something even the infamous before you couldn't do, make me swear at you). Alan -- last time you admitted you distorted what I said -- you seemed to have thought it was funny, though.

I invited you to just ignore each other. But, as you proved last time, you're a last-word-guy. No class. So go ahead, take it again. Personally, I won't see anything else you post.

See signature line -- going back to motto.

 

[BunduBasher]

Now it's "get caught in a lie" and "inonsistencies" (Find one, *******, before you post that crap -- hey, you just did something even the infamous before you couldn't do, make me swear at you). Alan -- last time you admitted you distorted what I said -- you seemed to have thought it was funny, though.

I invited you to just ignore each other. But, as you proved last time, you're a last-word-guy. No class. So go ahead, take it again. Personally, I won't see anything else you post.

See signature line -- going back to motto.

I PM'd LongTime and suggested respectfully that he change this last retort - to no avail.

Be it the last word or not, no class or not.

Alan -- last time you admitted you distorted what I said -- you seemed to have thought it was funny, though.

LongTime, please post a link to this thread, in order to provide context, without it, you once again provide a misleading impression. Are you saying I distorted what you said this time ? (BTW, here is the link to that thread, pages 6 and 7 should pretty much clear up any questions !) http://www.dirtrider.net/forums3/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34267&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

I invited you to just ignore each other. But, as you proved last time, you're a last-word-guy. No class. So go ahead, take it again. Personally, I won't see anything else you post.

Invited ? 'I'm done with you' sounds pretty condescending to me. A personal invitation would have been nice.

"a last-word-guy", to set the record straight, it was LongTime who wished to get the last word in (last time), and was stymied because the thread was locked. (A convenient way to be assured the last word !) I was in fact done with the thread a Long Time - but hey, LongTime you are a master of spin, so we will go with your version OK.

No Class, well ... I guess this is as good as it gets, my family has a witty saying "More arse than class" sorta means gung-ho.

All this last retort from you LongTime is an attempt to provoke me. Forget about it.

My apologies for my disparaging remarks, I did not want this to get personal, it never was.

Those who know me, know me as a quiet reserved guy, who is neither vindictive or aggressive. My intent never was to hurt or bring into question ones integrity. Lets leave it at that.

See below, LT indeed does get the last word :confused:

 

[longtime]

<insert whistling noise here>. :silly:

 

[Okiewan]

Actually, I get the last word.

"Closed"