Cruel and unusual punishment=California's 3rd strike system

[tucows]

Californias 3rd strike system a.k.a. the right-winged republican way of 'stopping' criminals

heres the basic idea: get two felonies(your two strikes) and one 'felony' usually a missdemeanor(the third strike) and you get life in prison.

Duane Silva, a 23-year-old manic depressive with an IQ of 70, received a 3rd strike (a 30 years-to-life sentence) for stealing a video recorder and a coin collection from his neighbors. His priors were for setting fire to trash barrels and the glove compartment of a car.

Probably the most famous 3-strikes case is the pizza thief case. Jerry Dewayne Williams, at the age of 27, was sentenced to prison for 25-years-life for stealing a slice of pepperoni pizza. His crime was a petty theft, but, because of California state law and because of his prior record, Williams theft was classified as a "felony." Williams prior convictions were for robbery, attempted robbery, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and possession of a controlled substance.

as a republican you defend this 3rd strike system, shouldnt you be ashamed. crimes have set punishments for them, the third strike system is clearly in opposition of that basic law. as a republican your sending a man to jail for life for stealing one slice of pizza.

CRIMES SHOULD BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY.........id like to see anyone argue that fact.


for more examples of this cruel punishment check out this link: http://www.facts1.com/general/news.htm

[Frosty]

Sick.

[Capitalist Imperial]

no, he was sent to prison for robbery, attempted robbery, and theft. robbery is no joke, peoples lives are threatened in robbery

perhaps you would like to keep repeat offenders out on the street so their crimes can worsen

it is amazing how these punk-ass liberals seem to actually want to look out for proven repeat criminals.

crime is down in california due to 3 strikes, and that is a fact

[tucows]

he was sent to life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza, simple petty theft. and targeting repeat offenders is discrimination. the judicial system cant predict the future, therefore the judicial system or any one else cannot say that some one is going to rob or murder again. there shouldnt be labels such as 'repeat offenders' just because someone does something two or three times doesnt mean they are programmed to do it again. before you respond maybe you want to examine your morals. crimes are to be punished accordingly. thats the whole point of having set laws. thats the whole point to having a government. no one has the power to say that this guy will repeat the same crimes he did. the 3rd strike system is playing god by saying that they can guarntee some one will commit a crime.

[Jaha]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 2:20 pm on Nov. 13, 2002
crime is down in california due to 3 strikes, and that is a fact


SO WHAT? it is a popular belief that crime is generally caused by the fact that people claim to have private property. if there was no private property, what of theft? plus, what would cause murder? no one is subjegated, no one is oppressed.

crime is down? forced obediance is up. you still want to celebrate?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from tucows on 9:26 pm on Nov. 13, 2002
he was sent to life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza, simple petty theft. and targeting repeat offenders is discrimination. the judicial system cant predict the future, therefore the judicial system or any one else cannot say that some one is going to rob or murder again. there shouldnt be labels such as 'repeat offenders' just because someone does something two or three times doesnt mean they are programmed to do it again. before you respond maybe you want to examine your morals. crimes are to be punished accordingly. thats the whole point of having set laws. thats the whole point to having a government. no one has the power to say that this guy will repeat the same crimes he did. the 3rd strike system is playing god by saying that they can guarntee some one will commit a crime.


no,no one is saying they can preedict a repeat offender. that is the point. the 3 strikes law states that if you have not learned your lesson by the 3rd time, you obviously won't learn

opponents of 3 strikews prefer to keep criminals on the street after they have been repeatedly given chances to pau their debt to society and move on, but said 3rd time offenders obviously don't wish to do that,so they need to be addressed before their 4th crime possibly hurts someone else

if you haven'tlearned to resect the law by the 3rd offense, then there is a problem

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Jaha on 11:04 pm on Nov. 13, 2002

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 2:20 pm on Nov. 13, 2002
crime is down in california due to 3 strikes, and that is a fact


SO WHAT? it is a popular belief that crime is generally caused by the fact that people claim to have private property. if there was no private property, what of theft? plus, what would cause murder? no one is subjegated, no one is oppressed.

crime is down? forced obediance is up. you still want to celebrate?


forced obedience?

Jaha, why is enforcing the obedience of legitimate laws designed to benefit the public a bad thing?

[tucows]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:09 am on Nov. 15, 2002

Quote: from tucows on 9:26 pm on Nov. 13, 2002
he was sent to life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza, simple petty theft. and targeting repeat offenders is discrimination. the judicial system cant predict the future, therefore the judicial system or any one else cannot say that some one is going to rob or murder again. there shouldnt be labels such as 'repeat offenders' just because someone does something two or three times doesnt mean they are programmed to do it again. before you respond maybe you want to examine your morals. crimes are to be punished accordingly. thats the whole point of having set laws. thats the whole point to having a government. no one has the power to say that this guy will repeat the same crimes he did. the 3rd strike system is playing god by saying that they can guarntee some one will commit a crime.


no,no one is saying they can preedict a repeat offender. that is the point. the 3 strikes law states that if you have not learned your lesson by the 3rd time, you obviously won't learn

opponents of 3 strikews prefer to keep criminals on the street after they have been repeatedly given chances to pau their debt to society and move on, but said 3rd time offenders obviously don't wish to do that,so they need to be addressed before their 4th crime possibly hurts someone else

if you haven'tlearned to resect the law by the 3rd offense, then there is a problem
right so what your saying is the judicial system can bend the rules because someone has commited two crimes? that makes no fucking sense. CRIMES ARE TO BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY, how many times to i have to fuckin say it. you dont make an exception and worsen punishment just because theyve commited two crimes, thats bullshit.

[Jaha]

CI, what do the laws protect? money. what does money represent? goods and services. who does the money go to? the rich. who deserves the money? the providers of goods and services. who commits common crime? the workers who have been unjustly withheld from their money.

what can we conclude? laws do not necessarily protect the public. laws are never made by the public. why should individuals be punished for something the public never agreed to??

"Jaha, why is enforcing the obedience of legitimate laws designed to benefit the public a bad thing?"

it isnt. it isnt bad at all. but, does enforcing felonies that say you cant mutilate corpses really protect the public? (yes thats a real felony!) and the public should decide what they want to be protected from.

case in point: stalin rewrote all literature to protect the people from intellectuality. is that a good thing?

[Moskitto]

we have something like that in britain, but it's not quite the same,
instead of being an automatic 30 years to life sentance it depends on the crime, for example, a woman stole a clock from a supermarket and was found guilty and because she'd been convicted of the same offense several times before and was clearly someone who likes shoplifting, they gave her a much longer sentance, however, if it had been her first shoplifting she would have got a community service order.

[canikickit]

because she'd been convicted of the same offense several times before and was clearly someone who likes shoplifting, they gave her a much longer sentance

That sounds fair. It depends on how they evaluate.


crime is down in california due to 3 strikes, and that is a fact

Three strikes is bullshit. There's more to life than lowering crime, the ends do not justify the means. There's more to crimefighting then locking everyone up.
Rehabilitation is the key.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from canikickit on 10:52 pm on Nov. 15, 2002

because she'd been convicted of the same offense several times before and was clearly someone who likes shoplifting, they gave her a much longer sentance

That sounds fair. It depends on how they evaluate.


crime is down in california due to 3 strikes, and that is a fact

Three strikes is bullshit. There's more to life than lowering crime, the ends do not justify the means. There's more to crimefighting then locking everyone up.
Rehabilitation is the key.

come on, canikickit, don't you think that if somewone commits 3 FELONIES, not 1,not 2, but 3, that he has been given adequate chances to rehabilitate?

you are taking a criminal apoligist stance

[Capitalist Imperial]

[quote]Quote: from Jaha on 5:17 am on Nov. 15, 2002
"CI, what do the laws protect? money."

well, you are half right, of course some do, but so what? $$$ is not evil by itself. laws against robbery, burglary, and fraud protect $$$ and property, so what? that is no inherently bad. the vast majority of americans belong to the middle class (Which I am part of), they are not super-rich. Their $$$ and property is modest, and it is their entire livelihood. so, of course their should be laws to protect them from being unjustly robbed of that

their are other laws, such as those against murder, assault, or rape, that have nothing to do with $$$

"what does money represent? goods and services. who does the money go to? the rich."

this is a common fallacy among leftists. the vast majority of american wealth is distributed to the middle class

"who deserves the money? the providers of goods and services." "who commits common crime? the workers who have been unjustly withheld from their money."

no, this is an illogical blanket statement. the ones that have suffered injustice are the victims of criminals actions, not the criminals themselves. besides, suffering injustice does not justify committing injustice to another. listen to yourself, you are being an apologist for criminals.

like you said, providers of goods and services receive $$$ in exchange for said goods and services, that is how our economy works, workers are not unjustly withheld their $$. they are given what the market brings for their goods and services. present day american workers are not withheld $$$, american workers are paid beter than any other worker on earth. perhaps you could explain your above comment


"what can we conclude? laws do not necessarily protect the public."

yes, they do

"laws are never made by the public."

laws are made by individuals elected by the public to represent the public. also, some laws are voted on directly. they are called measures and propositions

"why should individuals be punished for something the public never agreed to??"

who does not agree with laws against murder, robbery, or assault? I agree there are several questionable laws, but the vast majority of laws are legitimate and supported by the public., ie, the public agrees with them


"Jaha, why is enforcing the obedience of legitimate laws designed to benefit the public a bad thing?"

"it isnt. it isnt bad at all. but, does enforcing felonies that say you cant mutilate corpses really protect the public?"

yes,it protects individuals from having the memory of their loved ones from being disrespected. that is very important for those who mourn their deceased. I think most reasonable people concede that it would be horrible if the resting body of a loved one was disturbed and mutilated

"(yes thats a real felony!) and the public should decide what they want to be protected from."

they do, through their representatives. you can contact you local congressman and voice you opinion on any law right now

"case in point: stalin rewrote all literature to protect the people from intellectuality. is that a good thing?"

no, it is a horrible thing, but you help my findamental argument by pointing this out...

stalin was a communist


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 12:52 am on Nov. 16, 2002)


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 12:53 am on Nov. 16, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

[quote]Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:51 am on Nov. 16, 2002
[quote]Quote: from Jaha on 5:17 am on Nov. 15, 2002
"CI, what do the laws protect? money."

well, you are half right, of course some do, but so what? $$$ is not evil by itself. laws against robbery, burglary, and fraud protect $$$ and property, so what? that is no inherently bad. the vast majority of americans belong to the middle class (Which I am part of), they are not super-rich. Their $$$ and property is modest, and it is their entire livelihood. so, of course there should be laws to protect them from being unjustly robbed of that

their are other laws, such as those against murder, assault, or rape, that have nothing to do with $$$

"what does money represent? goods and services. who does the money go to? the rich."

this is a common fallacy among leftists. the vast majority of american wealth is distributed among the middle class

"who deserves the money? the providers of goods and services. who commits common crime? the workers who have been unjustly withheld from their money."

no, this is an illogical blanket statement. the ones that have suffered injustice are the victims of criminals actions, not the criminals themselves. besides, suffering injustice does not justify committing injustice to another. listen to yourself, you are being an apologist for criminals. criminals are rich and poor, young and old, workers and unemployed their is not 1 single criminal profile

like you said, providers of goods and services receive $$$ in exchange for said goods and services, that is how our economy works, workers are not unjustly withheld their $$. they are givenan amount that the market brings for their goods and services. present day american workers are not withheld $$$, american workers are paid beter than any other worker on earth. perhaps you could explain your above comment


"what can we conclude? laws do not necessarily protect the public."

yes, they do

"laws are never made by the public."

laws are made by groups of individuals elected by the public to represent the public. also, some laws are voted on directly. they are called measures and propositions

"why should individuals be punished for something the public never agreed to??"

who does not agree with laws against murder, robbery, or assault? I agree there are several questionable laws, but the vast majority of laws are legitimate and supported by the public., ie, the public agrees with them


"Jaha, why is enforcing the obedience of legitimate laws designed to benefit the public a bad thing?"

"it isnt. it isnt bad at all. but, does enforcing felonies that say you cant mutilate corpses really protect the public?"

yes,it protects individuals from having the memory of their loved ones from being disrespected. that is very important for those who mourn their deceased. I think most reasonable people concede that it would be horrible if the resting body of a loved one was disturbed and mutilated

"(yes thats a real felony!) and the public should decide what they want to be protected from."

they do, through their representatives and direct votes on measures and propositions.

"case in point: stalin rewrote all literature to protect the people from intellectuality. is that a good thing?"

no, it is a horrible thing, but you help my fundamental argument by pointing this out...

stalin was a communist


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 12:52 am on Nov. 16, 2002)


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 12:53 am on Nov. 16, 2002)


(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 1:02 am on Nov. 16, 2002)

[techguru]

3 strikes and tough crime laws in the states are so easy to understand. this should explain it....

the example of the guy with an iq of 70....

take a look at his life, probably not working a meaningless job and paying taxes.
no taxes = no mula$ for a 500 million dollar courthouse or a nuclear weapon, or for some anthrax or serin gas.

So hes not buying GE light bulbs, "contributing" to society etc... so he gets life in prison. ut not just any prison, a prison owned by a subsidiary of GE corporation, so now they make 30k per year off him where as they used to make nothing....

[Jaha]

CI, do not be a blind patriot.

"stalin was a communist"

he was of the Communist Party, but NEVER confuse stalin with someone who wants communism. (there are Communists and there are communists)

CI, you dont get it. i tried to explain in the most straight forward way possible, but i knew you might get confused. let me try and rephrase my arguement.

our society values money. without money you are worth nothing. people with nothing to lose do not see crime as wrong. why would they? its not like they have anything better to live for. everyone has their own measure of success, but our capitalist society only values success in this form: $$$$$$$$$. a criminal does not agree with the capitalist system. but what do you do when your enemy is bigger, smarter, stronger and more "justatified" than you? most people quit. they give up. a criminal gives up and they decide to act in the name of capitalism. anything for cash. anything.

give the people other forms of success or take away success all together and then who would do anything in order to get something that does not exist?

and those other crimes? how many of them are caused out of sheer luck? murder does not just happen. arson does not just happen.

what do YOU presume causes these crimes??

"yes,it protects individuals from having the memory of their loved ones from being disrespected. that is very important for those who mourn their deceased. I think most reasonable people concede that it would be horrible if the resting body of a loved one was disturbed and mutilated"

damn, people are getting 30 to life cause they made other people sad?? when the people are already sad anyways?? what the hell?

[techguru]

thanks jaha, agreed.

Like i have mentioned in other posts, for the indoctrinated american public communism = stalins, chinas, and north koreas crimes.

The states people think of when you say communism have been for the most part horrible repressive places for the majority of people living there...

for me, it = socialism, or perhaps even better, people working together to better society and to better our living conditions as a whole, not just sending money uphill while they send war, toxic waste, trash, advertising, and shit downhill.

[El Che]

CI its all about proportion. Its not fair, nore very bright, to say that people who consider that the 3 strikes law originates situations in which the punishment recieved in unproportional to the crimes commited are crime apologists.

Hey, the Chinese allow you 1 strike, then they put a bullet in your brain and mail the bill to your family. I`m sure that would lower crime.

[Stormin Norman]

The chopping block, a Columbian necktie, cutting off somebodies eyelids, Chinese water torture, sleep deprivation, starvation, beaten to death with bats, and the Iron Maiden all represent punishments or treatments that I would consider to be cruel and unusual. Serving time for violent crimes and infractions of a just system of laws, especially when you have two chances, is not what I consider to be cruel and unusual. Anyone who would claim the three strikes rule fits into this category should sit in on a couple of trials, hearing the heinous charges brought by the prosecution, looking the accussed in the face throughout the duration. Anyone making such a preposterous claim has never suffered a horrible loss brought by some murdering cheat. Anyone so devoid of reason, morals, and a sense of justice ought to be locked in the same cage as those the wish to release back into the population. Cruel and unusual, that is an argument made by someone to stupid to contemplate reality.

[tucows]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:00 am on Nov. 20, 2002
Anyone making such a preposterous claim has never suffered a horrible loss brought by some murdering cheat. Anyone so devoid of reason, morals, and a sense of justice ought to be locked in the same cage as those the wish to release back into the population. so your saying that two robberies and petty theft (where no one died or got seriously injured in any of the three instances) should send a man to jail for life because of the fact he hit the magic number three? your talking about surcumstances where there might be a mass murderer who is going out for his third victim, i think anyone who murders should deserve life. but i think theres never been such a surcumstance where a person has commited three murders and gets off clean each time. your upset because 'people loose lives'. what do you think your doing to somone when you lock them up in a prison where you get raped and beaten over and over all for robbery and petty theft. how many times do i have to say it, CRIMES SHOULD BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY. thats the whole point of having laws in the first place.

(Edited by tucows at 11:31 pm on Nov. 20, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from tucows on 11:29 pm on Nov. 20, 2002
[quote][b]Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:00 am on Nov. 20, 2002
" Anyone making such a preposterous claim has never suffered a horrible loss brought by some murdering cheat. Anyone so devoid of reason, morals, and a sense of justice ought to be locked in the same cage as those the wish to release back into the population. so your saying that two robberies and petty theft (where no one died or got seriously injured in any of the three instances) should send a man to jail for life because of the fact he hit the magic number three? your talking about surcumstances where there might be a mass murderer who is going out for his third victim, i think anyone who murders should deserve life. but i think theres never been such a surcumstance where a person has commited three murders and gets off clean each time. your upset because 'people loose lives'. what do you think your doing to somone when you lock them up in a prison where you get raped and beaten over and over all for robbery and petty theft. how many times do i have to say it, CRIMES SHOULD BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY. thats the whole point of having laws in the first place."

well, 1st of all, robbery is not a minor thing it is traumatic for the victim, it is classified as a violent crime. tell me tucows, if someone commits petty theft, and is given probation,then gets out, and committs robbery, and is sent back to jail for 6 months, and then gets out, and commits a crime a 3rd time, then what would his history dictate that he will do if we let him out a 4th time?

we are now endangering society by allowing this repeat offender, who has been given multiple opportunity to change his ways, back out into the population

who will eventually pay for this mistake? there is a good chance that an innocent civilian will it happens often, and that ius why 3 strikes is in effect

as for crimes being punished accordingly, repeating offenses compounds the crimes themselves. so, if, after 2 chances to pay you debt and move on, you harm society by committing a 3rd crime, then your punishment is administered accordingly