A Washington man may be set free, even though he was sentenced to life in prison under the state's 3 strikes law.
Do you agree with the 3 strikes law?
38 Comments
Mike said:
This man should not be released. He committed
the crime and now he needs to do his time. Stop
making up excuses. Why don't you ask the poor older ladies that got knocked to the ground by this THUG. "When you cause strife, you get LIFE."
erv said:
3 chances are enough. that was put in place when the public got tired of this endless cycle and in the end have some innocent person lose thier life. i like the way arizona jail system works. sleep in tents no air conditioning freezing at nite no tv but religion and make them dig paupers graves. maybe if we made the first 2 visits a bit more miserable there would be less 3rd visits.
Bluebluesdancer said:
Yes, but there are (and should be) exceptions to every rule.
Willy Lamson said:
I absolutely agree with the three strikes law.
It is THREE strikes, THREE chances.
If you have not learned by the third time, you deserve to be "OUT"!
This is a good law.
It is a good deterrant.
JB said:
What good is the three strikes law if you give in to the whiners?
No release! The bleeding hearts that keep getting these guys released are at it again. No release!!
just a guy said:
3-Strikes is not a good deterent. There is no statistical evidence that supports that any state with such draconian laws have reduced crime rates at all. We are a society with private corporations running prisons whoose lobbiests push for more and more incarceration because for them it leads to more profits. We ignore the root causes of crime and instead pass knee jerk laws that do absolutely nothing to improve public safety. Crime is a hazard of a free society. To govern on the principals on which this country was founded means to allow people. We could be a crime free society where we lock up everyone forever but at what cost?
Whistle Berries said:
Hmmm...
On the other hand, what about: "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time"...?
Obviously, this person is not a stranger to law enforcement and the legal system.
He made the choice to do the crime, with the full knowledge of the newly enacted law. Even people living in the gutters of rat infested alleyways of downtown Seattle, knew about the “Three Strikes Law.”
I agree that the punishment should fit the crime, BUT, in the case of three repeated violent crimes, it is apparent there was no effort toward rehabilitation made by this miscreant.
Over time, it is possible for people to change. However, instead of trying to change, Mr. Dozier continued to use impaired reasoning and made the choice to pick "vulnerable targets" in an attempt to get cash for his personal needs. I wonder how many other similar crimes by him were not reported to the police.
Instead of Mr. Dozier being the poster boy for clemency, there should be billboard ads up and down HWY 5 showing his criminal history; and, why he is doing life in prison. He could serve as a possible deterrent.
Maybe when he is 65 or 70, the then governor could release Mr. Dozier. At that age, he might not be such a serious threat to an old lady carrying a purse.
ed morgan said:
All that law does is make the person more dangerous. If your going to get a life gig then why not take a few people with you? maybe a cop or two. what do you have to loose? stupid law. try cutting there balls off so they cant infest the world with more of what the system produced doing the Reagan years.Not having balls after a crime spree is a good reason to get a life and be a good member of soiety. please forgive the poor spelling.
just a guy said:
There is no deterent effect of stiffer prison scentences. We need to understand that both of the comments following mine again refered to the deterent effect of punishing this man. It has been proven time and time again by many studies with lots of analysis of the statistics that stiffer prison scentences are not a deterent for crime. Until we stop thinking that if we just lock people up for longer and longer that it will stop crime we do not stand a chance of achieving a functional solution to help address the root causes of crime and thereby achieve a reduction in the overall crime rates. "Cutting peoples balls off" as Mr Morgan so thoughtfully and eloquently suggested would also not have any deterent effect and I hate to break it to you but there is no genetic disposition to criminal activity that I have heard of.
Why is it that legislation is never reviewed for effectiveness relating to their original goals to ensure that they accomplish what they wanted to accomplish? Are we locking up people because it feels good to do so? Or because it actually has an impact on crime? Remember not only do we have to pay for this mans incarceration but in many cases care for his children, additional support for the mother(s) of his children, health care in his old age. The costs to us as a society are almost incalculable. The cost of freedom (which I believe most of us cherish and are willing to fight for) is a reduction in security. Therefore we will never rid ourselves of crime unless we rid ourselves of freedom. What will the felony of tomorrow be? Will it be 2 strikes next? Justice without compassion is no justice at all.
erv said:
after the 3rd offence who cares if they rehab them selves? as long as they are perminatly removed from society is all the justice law abiding citizens deserve. who wants to listen to the lies and whining then down the road have to prosecute them again.
being forgiven and tolerated the first 2 times is all they deserve, after that...rot in jail!
Cyrix said:
The decision simply recalibrates Washington state with what the meaning of 'life' means.
In Marriage, "for life" usually means 8-10 years, and now, so does "for life" in prison.
Makes sense to me!
JOHN BROOKBANK said:
If you have not done a crime and spent time in jail then do not coment, some crimes need to be three stikes your out and others are B.S. most crimes that are bad enough to cause the three strikes are worth 10 years or more , I do beilve people change over time,and if you dont think so then we should look at all the things we did when we were kids ,as most of the crimes are caused by poor parents, not people that want to comment crimes, just never had the correct training when young, I agree with others if you can say till death do us part and only be married 10 to 20 years, by the laws of the state lets a person break that, then what right does someone have saying that three stikes has to be life, every person is diff. It should be treated as a person that has made bad dis. others that have real problem's sould not be let loose, all case files shows that people do change John
Robert said:
I think that if people go out and knowingly do something that they should not they should pay for their misdeeds. Those that go out and commit crimes that are worthy of sending them to prison then they should be sent and they should not be put back on the streets. The three strikes is a good thing but if a person was put in there because of dui's and they get a life sentence then that is something I would object to.
TJ said:
The three strikes law was passed for the express purpose of keeping dirt bags like this in prison and off the streets and out of our lives for the rest of their lives. This guy already had two opportunities to do time and get the message that he needed to change his lifestyle. He is in prison by his own personal choice. That is where he needs to stay for the rest of his life. No more little old ladies need to fear that he will be lurking around the next corner waiting to knock them down and steal their money. He chose to do the crime, let him live with doing the time.
I don't get it said:
Bring back the chain gang! Rain, sunshine, etc. When people commit crimes we should let them out: they will be free to certain extent. Hey, they commit the crime, why should they fill the never ending prison system? If they murder no strikes; give'em the chair! No appeals. If they were wrongly accused at least they won't be in prison or on the chain gang!
just a guy said:
To I Dont get it, You can be the first one wrongly accussed what do you say...at least then your stupid ass wont be in prison or on a chain gang or cluttering up comments sections with incredibly ignorant comments
just a guy said:
Let us not forget that law at sometime may impact you and your family people. This is not a law for the guys down the street. It could very easily be applied to one of your children, grandchildren, nephews or nieces who goes through a rough spot in life and makes a few mistakes. Think about the issue as if it were applied to your family. And I for one would not want anyone doing life over stealing my mother or wifes purse. That is ridiculous. I have read the comments on this issue and somehow people have interpreted to comments in the original story that he "shoved or struck" vicitims in his robberies to indicate that he bashed in their faces? You dont know. And to the person who said they would be ok with 3 strikes unless it was applied to DUI. Why not DUI? DUI is like walking through the mall pointing a revolver with one bullet at random people and pulling the trigger. I am so tired of people pretending DUI is not a real crime. It is an extreme act of negligence that shows lack of respect for the lives of others on the road.
Chuck Hindman said:
I am a pastor who has ministered inside the walls of the penitentiary and worked outside the walls to keep ex-cons from returning to jail. It has taught me that the three strikes law is a deterrent to repeat offenders but that there are sometimes a lot more effective ways to fight crime. So many of the inmates are there because of drug usage, but we have very limited treatment for them when they get out. Other programs to get them going in a positive direction are horribly underfunded. It now costs almost $50,000 a year to keep someone in jail, yet we spend very little keeping people out of jail. I wouldn't go to a doctor who prescribed surgery for every serious ailment. Why would I want a prison system that prescribes life behind bars for every set of crimes?
just a guy said:
Mr Hindman I would like to thank you for trying in the way you can to make a positive contribution to reducing crime by trying to address the root causes of crime that is very commendable. However there is one thing I must point out there is no statistical evidence whatsoever that 3 strikes laws have a positive influence on recidivisim rates. None. In states with the strongest of these such laws (WA and CA) there has been no over all reduction in repeat offences since their enactment.
Justoneman said:
The three strikes law is absurd. "Sex offender" registry is absurd. Are people really this short sighted? Think (don't feel) for a moment. You have two strikes. Two time loser. You walk into 7-11, with your gun in hand. Clerk gets a little lippy, or moves too slow. What would you do? If it were me, in that situation, I'd put two bullets in her chest. Nothing to lose. What are they gonna do, give me life? Wanna register people after they have done their time? Fine, next time he will slit the little kid's throat. Now your kid isn't just molested, he/she is cut up and rotting in a ditch. Do you see this? Can you think a little deeper than the talking heads on TV? We are sliding down a slope. Laugh all you want. They wanted to give drunk drivers yellow plates. That one died, but it will be back. Maybe in ten years, they will want to put a star over the door of your jewelry shop. Ohhh, don't worry, it's for the children. Just so we know who you are. Here's a tattoo for your arm, you will be given a number. Get on the train. Anyone seeing ghosts yet? Oh, wait, that could never happen again.
YellerDog said:
Let's talk economics. Most people never consider what it costs to keep someone in prison. The current cost in WA state can run to $70,000 a year and it gets higher the older the inmate. Do you really want to support someone for 20, 30, 40, how about 50 years for a relatively minor crime. The law was intended to be used for serious violent crimes. The threshold is much too low. I know someone who is in prison for life because he stole a bike from a kid. The kid wasn't hurt but he got pushed to the ground in the process so it was considered strong armed robbery which is a strike. His other two strikes were also minor in the grand scheme of crime. He was 25 and it was 10 years ago. You have already paid $700,000 for the theft of a bicycle.
The man was mentally ill but had never been diagnosed. As part of the process he was referred for mental health treatment and was stabilized for the first time on medications. There was every indication that if he stayed on the meds he would never be "dangerous" again.
Like so many he had no money for a lawyer and ended up doing a Public Defender guilty plea. Life in prison. No probation. $70,000 a year. A bicycle and no one was injured. The bike was quickly recovered by the way. But what he hell it's your money and you are rich right?
Is that what you really want for your three strikes law? If so, I feel sorry for you. If not then you should learn how the law works before you jump in to support it.
G GREEN said:
As originally predicated - Three strikes and you are out - no exceptions.
Ex Con said:
I have 3 strikes got each of them before I served a day of jail time at 19 years old. Spent several years in Penitentary. Was released at 26 having learned a great deal about myself and what I wanted from life and the way to get it. Have not had any contact with police since nor will I in the future am now 36 law abiding gainfully employed and paying taxes. Should I have been scentenced to life?
JJJ said:
REFORM?? reform the 3 strikes.. as we have hUgE burdons with Criminals and the like.. I say we offer 2 strikes.. and 3rd is bye bye FOREVER.. off the books.. off the planet! Yes.. Death Penalty!! Exception is Mentally inept/damaged but only allow 4th strike as Death penalty.. We have accepted far too much responsibility for the Criminals.. especially those who repeat!! Violent and planned Crimes.. only 2 Strikes.. 1 warning shot.. 1 direct to End it! S T O P the offenders permanetly.. no MORE Victims and their suffering needlessly!!
Don said:
Yes, I believe the 3 strike law is good and judgement on the 2nd should be more severe. It might make people think twice before committing a 3rd offense.
JJJ said:
adendum....meanwhile.. with the Reformed 3 strikes.. reduce the number of Prisons/Jails and all support functions (major.. Super Collosal $$ savings) and contribute a portion of the savings to save Life of Under Developed Countries/peoples where food and clean water are scarse and people die because these conditions. The world/USA would be a much better place if far Stricter Consequences of Crime were enforced.. at every level and everywhere!!
and in my dreams...I get a GREAT BIG ones to throw too!
justoneman said:
Idiots. Read my earlier post. All your tough talk is great. I'm sure it makes you feel big and bad. Remember that, when someone you know is killed by a two striker. Remember what they say about murder? The first one is a Bi**, all the rest are free. I read your wannabe bad boy, first to cast the stone posts, and I know exactly what I would do if I had 2 strikes on me. Leave nobody alive to tell the tale. Think about it. Morons.
bjeffery said:
It should be 3 strikes your dead, that would wake up a few slime balls
every week right after the lotto drawing they line up all the recent 3 strikers and shoot them.
as it is now, we just pat the bad guys on there po-po and say "now go play nice"
Jeremy said:
He should be let out if the prison needs room for more dangerous criminals. Unfortunately they need to pick the lesser of two evils when the prison fills up. What's the solution- more prisons, but until that happens we're stuck with these decisions.
Shawn said:
Yes I do agree with the three strikes law. Now if we could get the state to follow what it set up.
Mike said:
Let me know when they commit that 4th crime, i.e. rape, murder, drug doping, or theft/fraud. Then lets continue discussing and debating it.
Come on people--pull your head out of your 4th point of contact.
Remember--what dog you do with a rabid dog???
Hopefully we can figure this out--ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!!!
Good Luck
Mike
just a guy said:
Everyone of you tough talking lets get hard on crime build more prisons so on so forth people are sheep. You are believing the hype that your neighbors and the people down the street are all dangerous and the government needs to protect you. Also believing that we somehow live in a society more dangerous now than in the past which in fact is a falacy. Crime rates generally are about the same per capita as the always have been sure they go up a little and they go down a little but they mostly consistant. The price of a free society is crime. Only way to get rid of crime is to remove freedom....All of it.. And you people need to remember these laws are not for the people over there its for you too. Remember these laws may some day impact your family or freinds how will you feel then tough guys.
JJJ said:
oh.. I get it now.. in reading a similar article yet different as related to another "detention facility" .. I guess our tax dollars are really at work for the "detention industry".. there's money to be made in overseeing of Live animals/captives/INMATES.. Jobs and Job Security/longivity for the Animal Keepers.. or Kickbacks? whichever, one and the same.. just diffent flavor... therefore.. Law Keepers can forego the Voters 3 strikes law.. (see this article how jails and the like really work in our Land of the Free.. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27detain.html?_r=1&hp
The Man said:
The 3 strikes rule is another mechanism of The Man's to keep the system turning. The Man wants more laws, more criminals, more lawyers, more probation officers, more judges, more jails, more gaurds, more cops, etc., etc. Then the man needs more tax money to purchase all the above, you begin to see the picture now..!!
All statistcs show it is NO deterrent. States with 3 strike rules have just as many repeat offenders as those that do not. And now jail is a great place to be in tough economic times, for you get 3 square meals, free shelter, free clothes, free access to work out facilities, free libraries and priveleges, free cable TV, etc., etc.
Who are you right wingers fooling? It only boosts your portfolios now doesn't it?
allans said:
Ship'em all to Antartica with no underwear.
JJJ said:
I am in complete agreement with and would instantly vote for allans suggestion.. but to exclude shoes and socks for violent repeat offenders! Better yet.. make them swim there! No Lifeguards!
No, I do not agree with the three-strikes law. It's very nature flies in the face of an indisputable truth - everything changes, human beings in particular. The three-strikes law says, in essence, "this person will never change". That contradicts a basic law of nature that everything changes. This law says that civilization, society, american cultures gives up on this human being. We use the word frequently, however, no one is "irredeemable". This attitude is inherent in the three-strikes law and inherent in laws involving execution. None of these laws recognize the fact that change occurs whether we wish it or not. We cannot control all change, however, we can control some change ... and ought to to the best of our abilities.
The three-strikes law exists not because some human beings are irredeemable but because many human beings surrender in defeat long before they have been defeated. They say too quickly, "I cannot do anymore."
This is a failure of culture, not a failure of the allegedly "irredeemable" criminal. Those who cannot find their way in civilization deserve far better from those of us who can.
Keaton said:
I think it depends on the crime. If this person didn't commit murder - I think a life sentence is a bit much. I think it just depends on the crime. If this person is violent, then very stringent punishments should be applied, but if it wasn't a violent crime ....let him do some time ..and if there's a third strike, make the punishment more stringent.
This man should not be released. He committed
the crime and now he needs to do his time. Stop
making up excuses. Why don't you ask the poor older ladies that got knocked to the ground by this THUG. "When you cause strife, you get LIFE."
3 chances are enough. that was put in place when the public got tired of this endless cycle and in the end have some innocent person lose thier life. i like the way arizona jail system works. sleep in tents no air conditioning freezing at nite no tv but religion and make them dig paupers graves. maybe if we made the first 2 visits a bit more miserable there would be less 3rd visits.
Yes, but there are (and should be) exceptions to every rule.
I absolutely agree with the three strikes law.
It is THREE strikes, THREE chances.
If you have not learned by the third time, you deserve to be "OUT"!
This is a good law.
It is a good deterrant.
What good is the three strikes law if you give in to the whiners?
No release! The bleeding hearts that keep getting these guys released are at it again. No release!!
3-Strikes is not a good deterent. There is no statistical evidence that supports that any state with such draconian laws have reduced crime rates at all. We are a society with private corporations running prisons whoose lobbiests push for more and more incarceration because for them it leads to more profits. We ignore the root causes of crime and instead pass knee jerk laws that do absolutely nothing to improve public safety. Crime is a hazard of a free society. To govern on the principals on which this country was founded means to allow people. We could be a crime free society where we lock up everyone forever but at what cost?
Hmmm...
On the other hand, what about: "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time"...?
Obviously, this person is not a stranger to law enforcement and the legal system.
He made the choice to do the crime, with the full knowledge of the newly enacted law. Even people living in the gutters of rat infested alleyways of downtown Seattle, knew about the “Three Strikes Law.”
I agree that the punishment should fit the crime, BUT, in the case of three repeated violent crimes, it is apparent there was no effort toward rehabilitation made by this miscreant.
Over time, it is possible for people to change. However, instead of trying to change, Mr. Dozier continued to use impaired reasoning and made the choice to pick "vulnerable targets" in an attempt to get cash for his personal needs. I wonder how many other similar crimes by him were not reported to the police.
Instead of Mr. Dozier being the poster boy for clemency, there should be billboard ads up and down HWY 5 showing his criminal history; and, why he is doing life in prison. He could serve as a possible deterrent.
Maybe when he is 65 or 70, the then governor could release Mr. Dozier. At that age, he might not be such a serious threat to an old lady carrying a purse.
All that law does is make the person more dangerous. If your going to get a life gig then why not take a few people with you? maybe a cop or two. what do you have to loose? stupid law. try cutting there balls off so they cant infest the world with more of what the system produced doing the Reagan years.Not having balls after a crime spree is a good reason to get a life and be a good member of soiety. please forgive the poor spelling.
There is no deterent effect of stiffer prison scentences. We need to understand that both of the comments following mine again refered to the deterent effect of punishing this man. It has been proven time and time again by many studies with lots of analysis of the statistics that stiffer prison scentences are not a deterent for crime. Until we stop thinking that if we just lock people up for longer and longer that it will stop crime we do not stand a chance of achieving a functional solution to help address the root causes of crime and thereby achieve a reduction in the overall crime rates. "Cutting peoples balls off" as Mr Morgan so thoughtfully and eloquently suggested would also not have any deterent effect and I hate to break it to you but there is no genetic disposition to criminal activity that I have heard of.
Why is it that legislation is never reviewed for effectiveness relating to their original goals to ensure that they accomplish what they wanted to accomplish? Are we locking up people because it feels good to do so? Or because it actually has an impact on crime? Remember not only do we have to pay for this mans incarceration but in many cases care for his children, additional support for the mother(s) of his children, health care in his old age. The costs to us as a society are almost incalculable. The cost of freedom (which I believe most of us cherish and are willing to fight for) is a reduction in security. Therefore we will never rid ourselves of crime unless we rid ourselves of freedom. What will the felony of tomorrow be? Will it be 2 strikes next? Justice without compassion is no justice at all.
after the 3rd offence who cares if they rehab them selves? as long as they are perminatly removed from society is all the justice law abiding citizens deserve. who wants to listen to the lies and whining then down the road have to prosecute them again.
being forgiven and tolerated the first 2 times is all they deserve, after that...rot in jail!
The decision simply recalibrates Washington state with what the meaning of 'life' means.
In Marriage, "for life" usually means 8-10 years, and now, so does "for life" in prison.
Makes sense to me!
If you have not done a crime and spent time in jail then do not coment, some crimes need to be three stikes your out and others are B.S. most crimes that are bad enough to cause the three strikes are worth 10 years or more , I do beilve people change over time,and if you dont think so then we should look at all the things we did when we were kids ,as most of the crimes are caused by poor parents, not people that want to comment crimes, just never had the correct training when young, I agree with others if you can say till death do us part and only be married 10 to 20 years, by the laws of the state lets a person break that, then what right does someone have saying that three stikes has to be life, every person is diff. It should be treated as a person that has made bad dis. others that have real problem's sould not be let loose, all case files shows that people do change John
I think that if people go out and knowingly do something that they should not they should pay for their misdeeds. Those that go out and commit crimes that are worthy of sending them to prison then they should be sent and they should not be put back on the streets. The three strikes is a good thing but if a person was put in there because of dui's and they get a life sentence then that is something I would object to.
The three strikes law was passed for the express purpose of keeping dirt bags like this in prison and off the streets and out of our lives for the rest of their lives. This guy already had two opportunities to do time and get the message that he needed to change his lifestyle. He is in prison by his own personal choice. That is where he needs to stay for the rest of his life. No more little old ladies need to fear that he will be lurking around the next corner waiting to knock them down and steal their money. He chose to do the crime, let him live with doing the time.
Bring back the chain gang! Rain, sunshine, etc. When people commit crimes we should let them out: they will be free to certain extent. Hey, they commit the crime, why should they fill the never ending prison system? If they murder no strikes; give'em the chair! No appeals. If they were wrongly accused at least they won't be in prison or on the chain gang!
To I Dont get it, You can be the first one wrongly accussed what do you say...at least then your stupid ass wont be in prison or on a chain gang or cluttering up comments sections with incredibly ignorant comments
Let us not forget that law at sometime may impact you and your family people. This is not a law for the guys down the street. It could very easily be applied to one of your children, grandchildren, nephews or nieces who goes through a rough spot in life and makes a few mistakes. Think about the issue as if it were applied to your family. And I for one would not want anyone doing life over stealing my mother or wifes purse. That is ridiculous. I have read the comments on this issue and somehow people have interpreted to comments in the original story that he "shoved or struck" vicitims in his robberies to indicate that he bashed in their faces? You dont know. And to the person who said they would be ok with 3 strikes unless it was applied to DUI. Why not DUI? DUI is like walking through the mall pointing a revolver with one bullet at random people and pulling the trigger. I am so tired of people pretending DUI is not a real crime. It is an extreme act of negligence that shows lack of respect for the lives of others on the road.
I am a pastor who has ministered inside the walls of the penitentiary and worked outside the walls to keep ex-cons from returning to jail. It has taught me that the three strikes law is a deterrent to repeat offenders but that there are sometimes a lot more effective ways to fight crime. So many of the inmates are there because of drug usage, but we have very limited treatment for them when they get out. Other programs to get them going in a positive direction are horribly underfunded. It now costs almost $50,000 a year to keep someone in jail, yet we spend very little keeping people out of jail. I wouldn't go to a doctor who prescribed surgery for every serious ailment. Why would I want a prison system that prescribes life behind bars for every set of crimes?
Mr Hindman I would like to thank you for trying in the way you can to make a positive contribution to reducing crime by trying to address the root causes of crime that is very commendable. However there is one thing I must point out there is no statistical evidence whatsoever that 3 strikes laws have a positive influence on recidivisim rates. None. In states with the strongest of these such laws (WA and CA) there has been no over all reduction in repeat offences since their enactment.
The three strikes law is absurd. "Sex offender" registry is absurd. Are people really this short sighted? Think (don't feel) for a moment. You have two strikes. Two time loser. You walk into 7-11, with your gun in hand. Clerk gets a little lippy, or moves too slow. What would you do? If it were me, in that situation, I'd put two bullets in her chest. Nothing to lose. What are they gonna do, give me life? Wanna register people after they have done their time? Fine, next time he will slit the little kid's throat. Now your kid isn't just molested, he/she is cut up and rotting in a ditch. Do you see this? Can you think a little deeper than the talking heads on TV? We are sliding down a slope. Laugh all you want. They wanted to give drunk drivers yellow plates. That one died, but it will be back. Maybe in ten years, they will want to put a star over the door of your jewelry shop. Ohhh, don't worry, it's for the children. Just so we know who you are. Here's a tattoo for your arm, you will be given a number. Get on the train. Anyone seeing ghosts yet? Oh, wait, that could never happen again.
Let's talk economics. Most people never consider what it costs to keep someone in prison. The current cost in WA state can run to $70,000 a year and it gets higher the older the inmate. Do you really want to support someone for 20, 30, 40, how about 50 years for a relatively minor crime. The law was intended to be used for serious violent crimes. The threshold is much too low. I know someone who is in prison for life because he stole a bike from a kid. The kid wasn't hurt but he got pushed to the ground in the process so it was considered strong armed robbery which is a strike. His other two strikes were also minor in the grand scheme of crime. He was 25 and it was 10 years ago. You have already paid $700,000 for the theft of a bicycle.
The man was mentally ill but had never been diagnosed. As part of the process he was referred for mental health treatment and was stabilized for the first time on medications. There was every indication that if he stayed on the meds he would never be "dangerous" again.
Like so many he had no money for a lawyer and ended up doing a Public Defender guilty plea. Life in prison. No probation. $70,000 a year. A bicycle and no one was injured. The bike was quickly recovered by the way. But what he hell it's your money and you are rich right?
Is that what you really want for your three strikes law? If so, I feel sorry for you. If not then you should learn how the law works before you jump in to support it.
As originally predicated - Three strikes and you are out - no exceptions.
I have 3 strikes got each of them before I served a day of jail time at 19 years old. Spent several years in Penitentary. Was released at 26 having learned a great deal about myself and what I wanted from life and the way to get it. Have not had any contact with police since nor will I in the future am now 36 law abiding gainfully employed and paying taxes. Should I have been scentenced to life?
REFORM?? reform the 3 strikes.. as we have hUgE burdons with Criminals and the like.. I say we offer 2 strikes.. and 3rd is bye bye FOREVER.. off the books.. off the planet! Yes.. Death Penalty!! Exception is Mentally inept/damaged but only allow 4th strike as Death penalty.. We have accepted far too much responsibility for the Criminals.. especially those who repeat!! Violent and planned Crimes.. only 2 Strikes.. 1 warning shot.. 1 direct to End it! S T O P the offenders permanetly.. no MORE Victims and their suffering needlessly!!
Yes, I believe the 3 strike law is good and judgement on the 2nd should be more severe. It might make people think twice before committing a 3rd offense.
adendum....meanwhile.. with the Reformed 3 strikes.. reduce the number of Prisons/Jails and all support functions (major.. Super Collosal $$ savings) and contribute a portion of the savings to save Life of Under Developed Countries/peoples where food and clean water are scarse and people die because these conditions. The world/USA would be a much better place if far Stricter Consequences of Crime were enforced.. at every level and everywhere!!
and in my dreams...I get a GREAT BIG ones to throw too!
Idiots. Read my earlier post. All your tough talk is great. I'm sure it makes you feel big and bad. Remember that, when someone you know is killed by a two striker. Remember what they say about murder? The first one is a Bi**, all the rest are free. I read your wannabe bad boy, first to cast the stone posts, and I know exactly what I would do if I had 2 strikes on me. Leave nobody alive to tell the tale. Think about it. Morons.
It should be 3 strikes your dead, that would wake up a few slime balls
every week right after the lotto drawing they line up all the recent 3 strikers and shoot them.
as it is now, we just pat the bad guys on there po-po and say "now go play nice"
He should be let out if the prison needs room for more dangerous criminals. Unfortunately they need to pick the lesser of two evils when the prison fills up. What's the solution- more prisons, but until that happens we're stuck with these decisions.
Yes I do agree with the three strikes law. Now if we could get the state to follow what it set up.
Let me know when they commit that 4th crime, i.e. rape, murder, drug doping, or theft/fraud. Then lets continue discussing and debating it.
Come on people--pull your head out of your 4th point of contact.
Remember--what dog you do with a rabid dog???
Hopefully we can figure this out--ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!!!
Good Luck
Mike
Everyone of you tough talking lets get hard on crime build more prisons so on so forth people are sheep. You are believing the hype that your neighbors and the people down the street are all dangerous and the government needs to protect you. Also believing that we somehow live in a society more dangerous now than in the past which in fact is a falacy. Crime rates generally are about the same per capita as the always have been sure they go up a little and they go down a little but they mostly consistant. The price of a free society is crime. Only way to get rid of crime is to remove freedom....All of it.. And you people need to remember these laws are not for the people over there its for you too. Remember these laws may some day impact your family or freinds how will you feel then tough guys.
oh.. I get it now.. in reading a similar article yet different as related to another "detention facility" .. I guess our tax dollars are really at work for the "detention industry".. there's money to be made in overseeing of Live animals/captives/INMATES.. Jobs and Job Security/longivity for the Animal Keepers.. or Kickbacks? whichever, one and the same.. just diffent flavor... therefore.. Law Keepers can forego the Voters 3 strikes law.. (see this article how jails and the like really work in our Land of the Free.. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27detain.html?_r=1&hp
The 3 strikes rule is another mechanism of The Man's to keep the system turning. The Man wants more laws, more criminals, more lawyers, more probation officers, more judges, more jails, more gaurds, more cops, etc., etc. Then the man needs more tax money to purchase all the above, you begin to see the picture now..!!
All statistcs show it is NO deterrent. States with 3 strike rules have just as many repeat offenders as those that do not. And now jail is a great place to be in tough economic times, for you get 3 square meals, free shelter, free clothes, free access to work out facilities, free libraries and priveleges, free cable TV, etc., etc.
Who are you right wingers fooling? It only boosts your portfolios now doesn't it?
Ship'em all to Antartica with no underwear.
I am in complete agreement with and would instantly vote for allans suggestion.. but to exclude shoes and socks for violent repeat offenders! Better yet.. make them swim there! No Lifeguards!
No, I do not agree with the three-strikes law. It's very nature flies in the face of an indisputable truth - everything changes, human beings in particular. The three-strikes law says, in essence, "this person will never change". That contradicts a basic law of nature that everything changes. This law says that civilization, society, american cultures gives up on this human being. We use the word frequently, however, no one is "irredeemable". This attitude is inherent in the three-strikes law and inherent in laws involving execution. None of these laws recognize the fact that change occurs whether we wish it or not. We cannot control all change, however, we can control some change ... and ought to to the best of our abilities.
The three-strikes law exists not because some human beings are irredeemable but because many human beings surrender in defeat long before they have been defeated. They say too quickly, "I cannot do anymore."
This is a failure of culture, not a failure of the allegedly "irredeemable" criminal. Those who cannot find their way in civilization deserve far better from those of us who can.
I think it depends on the crime. If this person didn't commit murder - I think a life sentence is a bit much. I think it just depends on the crime. If this person is violent, then very stringent punishments should be applied, but if it wasn't a violent crime ....let him do some time ..and if there's a third strike, make the punishment more stringent.