Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
That should be up to the individual states, but if they do pass that kind of a law they need to be specific about which kinds of felonies would trigger the third strike.
Some states make driving at a certain speed over the limit a low class felony and the third conviction of something like that should not warrant life in prison without parole.
Just an ex-cop's personal opinion. B)
I agree with you on this one. I think this law would be perfect for organized crime members who are found guilty of crimes like armed robbery and theft with proof that they're part of a criminal organization.
It's not effective anywhere it is already used. The (stated) objective of it is to remove career hoods and thus lower crime, however it is usually more effective to detain a much larger number of felons at the prime age for criminal activity (say 15-30) rather than detain a small number of felons well past that age in order to catch a handful fewer who would persist in actively committing significant crimes. If our object is to lower crime then, the law fails. This is not the object of the law however.
The actual objective of a law like this is to employ more prison guards and police officers. Whether or not such a system actually has some greater social utility. In this sense, the law works perfectly.
You use RICO statutes to put those people away. Not three strikes.