Three Strikes Law for Oregon

[alv7722]

wait... so YOU (and whatever educational and vocational experiential authority you possess) are able to look at a criminal and the social harm he's done to the society he's a part of, and determine what his fate ought to be..... but a literal JUDGE cannot?

we have judges for a reason, and they've gone to a lot of school and spent a lot of time in practice of the law before they ever get to be judges.

we have 2.something million people incarcerated in this country - that's more than any other nation in the world, and i don't just mean percapita - i mean straight numbers. not even communist china or neo-soviet russia come anywhere close. if throwing people in prison actually fixed crime, shouldn't we be a bubbleguming utopia by now?

Most (many) criminals accused of a serious crime have what is called a 'record'. It is simple to quantify that they are a habitual offender. Quantifiyng the harm they have caused, could best be asked of their victims.

China has over a million Uyghur Muslims incarcerated. They also, routinely, avoid incarceration by executions.

IP17&18 will do NOTHING to deter gun violence, or any other crime. It will only serve to make criminals out of innocent Citizens. We work, pay taxes, and harm NO ONE!! What purpose does it serve to put US in jail?????

 

[Nosferatu]

There's so much forgiveness in this thread, Jesus is going to have to come back just to off himself again.

He tried that once. Janet Reno had other plans.

 

[mhayd93]

of the many productive and just ways to respond to bullshįt, making new draconian laws isnt one. lets not respond to bs with more bs.

I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what a "3-Strikes" policy is.

It does not mean that some rogue sheriff or vigilante goes around and proclaims people guilty without a trial. It is a system wherein if a person goes through the entire—and proper—legal process and gets convicted on 3 separate occasions, they face an automatic increase in the severity of sentencing.

In areas where such policy has been implemented, there is typically a standard for what level of crime qualifies as a strike (usually saved for more severe offenses). In these situations, the citizen is still afforded all of their Constitutional rights; it is just one strategy for combatting the issue of recidivism.

 

[Nosferatu]

Scum for me is super easy. They pick up some scum, have him on video committing a crime, convict him. If this is say his 5th, 6th, or so time of being convicted? He has showed me he is scum and no longer wants to be part of society. So he should be put where he can live with his kind for the rest of his life and not make more victims. Surprising at how hard this is for some to understand. Public education I guess.

Not on my dime. 5 or 6 felonies? Put them down, they obviously can't play nice with others and have negative value to society.

 

[Hueco]

I have no dog in this fight, but I think you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what a "3-Strikes" policy is.

It does not mean that some rogue sheriff or vigilante goes around and proclaims people guilty without a trial. It is a system wherein if a person goes through the entire—and proper—legal process and gets convicted on 3 separate occasions, they face an automatic increase in the severity of sentencing.

In areas where such policy has been implemented, there is typically a standard for what level of crime qualifies as a strike (usually saved for more severe offenses). In these situations, the citizen is still afforded all of their Constitutional rights; it is just one strategy for combatting the issue of recidivism.

The third strike policy creates de facto life sentences out of most crimes. So, the strategy for solving recidivism, then, is to take away the opportunity to recidivate?

That's about as logical as solving drownings by walling off the ocean and pools.

Removing choice isn't solving anything, it's just messing with numbers.

 

[mhayd93]

The third strike policy creates de facto life sentences out of most crimes. So, the strategy for solving recidivism, then, is to take away the opportunity to recidivate?

That's about as logical as solving drownings by walling off the ocean and pools.

Removing choice isn't solving anything, it's just messing with numbers.

I think the logic is plenty reasonable if you believe there should be a limit on how many chances a citizen should get (regarding criminal convictions). Of course, there should also be a reasonable structure wherein small crimes (such as minor shoplifting) do not count as a strike.

 

[Alexx1401]

Not on my dime. 5 or 6 felonies? Put them down, they obviously can't play nice with others and have negative value to society.

As much as I would love that its of course never going to happen. Cost is one thing the one side is always screaming about and they are correct. It is insane what it costs. Its why I have long said for repeat scum, like car theft. Camps set up. They could live and eat just like the Troops do. Nothing more. Some of them would if this was done decide crime was no longer "fun". For those who keep coming back? Extend the time to many years. Still be cheaper than allowing them to have free reign to just keep costing us over and over daily. Sadly voters still have not yet had enough of this though. So the rest of us have to learn to live with the scum too.

 

[pharmseller]

It ain't gun violence.

It's violence using a gun.

If a fella has a gun and he shouldn't, it's an automatic nickel.

I'd be happy with that as a start.

Then let's get to work on the career criminals and turn them into career prisoners.




P