Do you believe in the three strikes you're out law?
By sudalunts
@sudalunts (5523)
United States
February 2, 2009 9:20am CST
This law was developed to put violent criminals, rapists, murderers, child molesters etc away for good, after three offenses. Some states are taking it too far and putting people in prison for life for minor offenses.
There was a young woman who was arrested two times for minor offenses, she then wrote a bad check, which is a non violent crime, and was sent to prison for 25 to life. How fair is that.
There was a study done, that showed this law is enforced mostly on blacks, and most of the crimes are non violent crimes.
There also was a woman who had been arrested two times, and then one day needed formula for her baby, she went to the local store and stole a can, this woman was given life in prison, for petty theft. How fair is that in terms of fitting the punishment with the crime?
What are your thoughts?
3 people like this
9 responses
@caver1 (1762)
• United States
2 Feb 09
In both cases you listed there were two previous offenses. When you are on probation you simply can't slip up. While we all feel pity for the woman that needed formula for her baby, she resorted to stealing. That's wrong. There are other ways to get food for your baby. She wasn't given life in prison for petty theft, she was given life in prison because she is a habitual offender.
1 person likes this
@sudalunts (5523)
• United States
2 Feb 09
I understand what you are saying but the law was created for serious and violent offenses. Stealing milk is not violent.
Three strikes laws are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which require the state courts to hand down a mandatory and extended period of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. These statutes became very popular in the 1990s. They are formally known among lawyers and legal academics as habitual offender laws.[1] A person accused under such laws is referred to in some jurisdictions as a "prior and persistent offender." The name comes from baseball, where a batter is permitted two strikes before striking out on the third.
@luvandpower (2048)
• United States
2 Feb 09
I believe even though the act of stealing in petty may seem right, it is still breaking the law. So many items can be done to help out children in need, that I just won't even start to list them. However, a crime is a crime. And if we let one of them loose, we have to be fair to all of them. Now, that would not be fair now would it?
1 person likes this
@sudalunts (5523)
• United States
2 Feb 09
I understand, but the law was for violent acts of crime, petty theft is not violent enough that a person should go to prison for the rest of their life.
thanks for your response.
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
3 Feb 09
If the three offenses are all the same then yes, I do believe that it's a fair system. One of the main reasons that people re-offend over and over again is because they continuously get a slap on the wrist only! At what point do you say that enough is enough??? I don't agree with the life sentence aspect for "less serious" offences, but even a person that is busted for passing bad cheques three times for example, just isn't respecting the fact it's illegal so should be punished severely in my opinion.
@sudalunts (5523)
• United States
3 Feb 09
Thank you for your response, I value your opinion.
1 person likes this
@fwidman (11514)
• United States
3 Feb 09
You are correct, the law was supposed to be for hardened criminals and violent offenders. it was not meant for petty thievery or other non-violent offenses. I wish they would strike the law down and start over 
@sudalunts (5523)
• United States
3 Feb 09
Each case that was tried under this law should be reevaluated and these people should be released, to make room for the real hardened criminals.
@TheCatLady (4691)
• Israel
2 Feb 09
It was meant for felons. She obviously had a very bad lawyer.
I knew a guy who was up for his third strike. He was the kid of someone of one of my parents tenants. I go to know him when I moved into the next building. He was a good young adult then. A nice guy.
Unfortunately he made a few mistakes. One was being in the back seat of a car during a robbery and another was stealing a bowling ball on a dare. I don't know what the third strike was. My mom spoke up saying what a good son he was and how in all the years his mom was a tenant there never was a problem. Between my mom and his public defender they managed to get one strike dropped from his record and he was charged as his second strike. Yes, he went to prison, but not for life.
@sudalunts (5523)
• United States
2 Feb 09
I'm glad things worked out for him. I am not against the law, I just think that depending on the prosecutors it can be used to the extreme.
@TheCatLady (4691)
• Israel
2 Feb 09
I have no idea what happen to him. He might have been paroled and might be back in prison again. It's a shame when one mistake sends a person spiraling into a life of crime, but it was his choice to commit all but one of the crimes. Being in the car when a crime occur ed wasn't intentional. He should have learned then to pick his friends better and fly straight.
@city_girl21 (68)
• United States
2 Feb 09
I think it should apply and be limited to violent crimes only, not petty theft or anything like that. But really that's not too fair for the people who already were incarcerated for their crimes under this law. I mean, the people get three chances. After one I wouldn't screw up again. And the woman who stole the baby formula, is she really a good mother if she'd already been arrested twice before? They should probably dumb it down a little, like not making it life in prison, but I still think that it should stay.
@sudalunts (5523)
• United States
2 Feb 09
Of course I think she sould be punished for what she did. There are people who have committed murder, rape, kidnapping etc. who will eventually get out of jail and are not given life.
@KrauseHome (36448)
• United States
4 Feb 09
Personally I think this does need to be looked at and figure out how to make this more beneficial. Because Honestly when people are ending up in Prison for something that is menial while the Serial killers end up only in jail with a hand slap, it is Sad. Personally I think they could really revamp this system and keep it for only certain things and leave the rest for minor defences still as well. But overall I think it may be a long time if ever before most will want to make sure something good comes from this as well.
@puddytat101 (657)
• United States
2 Feb 09
Hi sudalunts,
Wow, now that does seem harsh. It really doesn't seem like the justice system has all its kinks worked out. For instance, the burglar who cut his hand on a kitchen knife while robbing an old lady. He sued for damages and medical expenses and won! I don't understand the law, but I know it's not fair much of the time!
@JamesBong (84)
•
2 Feb 09
I don't think the case You outlined here is fair at all, how can You punish petty crime like that, especially when the motive is to feed Your own child.
I think the concept is a good idea though, but surely it should be held at bay and used only for rape, murder and molestation.
@sudalunts (5523)
• United States
2 Feb 09
My point exactly, the law was set up supposedly for violent crimes, petty theft is not a violent crime, but when the prosecutors requested the three strike you are out penalty, the judges went along with them.
