The news item that I will reference for this topic is not the subject of the debate itself, but merely the vehicle for it. Feel free to comment on the specific case, or introduce other examples, but the main questions will be more encompassing and will be listed below.
In my childhood hometown of Salem, Oregon, a man was sentenced to life in prison for felony sexual assault in 2001. It was his ninth sexual offense, and the sentence fell under Oregon's Three Strikes Law. Yesterday, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the conviction citing:
The court also disagreed that the sentence was cruel and unusual, noting that the three-strikes law was not aimed at the gravity of a particular crime but at habitual offenders.
Link

Though my opinion on this law may be easy to divine for some, I'll withhold commenting until later.

The questions for debate are:

What is the compelling case to be made in support of a state's three strikes law?

Do you personally oppose the law and why?

Do some crimes warrant such a measure for recidivist criminals while others do not?

What realistic measures can you think of to stem the careers of habitual criminals?

What is the compelling case to be made in support of a state's three strikes law?

I believe there is an image of this law that shoplifters get locked up for life on their third strike. At least in California, you have to have two prior violent or serious crimes to get 25 to life. This law would definitely stop career criminals and light plea deals such as probation.

Do you personally oppose the law and why?

No, If a criminal doesn't reform after two felony convictions then they probably never will.

Do some crimes warrant such a measure for recidivist criminals while others do not?

If it is a felony.

What realistic measures can you think of to stem the careers of habitual criminals?
I don't think there is any better alternative.

What is the compelling case to be made in support of a state's three strikes law?

Since I oppose it, I can't make one. It was a feel-good "get tough on crime" measure put forward by people who believe judges are the cause of all problems in the country.

Do you personally oppose the law and why?

I oppose it for the same reason I oppose any other mandatory sentencing, it does not allow the actual facts of a case to be considered. 25-to-life should be a sentencing option on a third strike, but it should not be applied automatically regardless of the circumstance. We need to leave the sentencing for a crime(s) to the jury and the judge that heard the case.

I don't agree with that reasoning at all. Certainly there are many people who are angered by lax sentences imposed by some judges, but having lived in a couple of states when they passed the Three Strikes law, I saw the major reasoning to be that career, or recidivist criminals were beyond rehabilitation, as proven by their actions.

I see no problem with the forewarning that a criminal gets. Commit one more crime, no matter what the offense, and get locked away for life. We as a society are tired of dealing with you the criminal. The criminal who has shown no penchant for anything else but a life of crime, no inclination to be a productive member of society, doesn't rate my limited compassion.

I am quite fond of three strikes laws. Three felony crimes. I would like to see it applied to the likes and Ken Lay and such, for three convictions over the same crime, all felonies.

If a person is charged and convicted of three felonies- it usually means they have plead out to numerous actual felony acts reduced to a misdemeanor.

Getting a felony charge and conviction- it has to be a pretty bad crime most of the time, and the felony conviction is usualy after a long string of reduced to misdemeonor felonies.

I think we need to keep them and expand them.

The questions for debate are:

What is the compelling case to be made in support of a state's three strikes law?

Do you personally oppose the law and why?

Do some crimes warrant such a measure for recidivist criminals while others do not?

What realistic measures can you think of to stem the careers of habitual criminals?


I haven't seen any studies or heard anything to the effectivness of the 3 strike laws, but I do notice that crime statistics are not getting worse and in many instances are getting better.

Based on how crappy the economy is for the average person or even worse for the impoverished.....something is preventing these people from increasing the crime rates.

It seems to be pretty effective from my POV.

1. Mandatory "three strikes" laws are applied disproportionately against minorities, property crimes, drug abusers and non-violent offenders. It is ludicrous to lock away for life small-time crooks while murderers, rapists and child molesters are set free every day.

The United States incarcerates over two million prisoners. No other country locks away so many of its own citizens. Mandatory sentencing laws take away all discretion from judges, gives too much power to prosecutors, and overburdens an already overwhelmed prison system.

Permanent incarceration may be the fitting punishment for murder. Few shed tears for Gary L. Ridgway, the Green River killer, who was sentenced to 48 consecutive life terms in Washington State, one for each of the women he admitted to killing.

But some critics of life sentences say they are overused, pointing to people like Jerald Sanders, who is serving a life sentence in Alabama. He was a small-time burglar and had never been convicted of a violent crime. Under the state's habitual offender law, he was sent away after stealing a $60 bicycle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/02/national...a027de0&ei=5070

Can someone explain to me how locking away a punk loser like Jerald Sanders for life makes anyone safer, while sexual predators are released every day on the streets?

"America's prisons continue to suffer in many, many places from being extraordinarily overcrowded," said Elizabeth Alexander of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project. "Overcrowding puts people at more risk."

There have been efforts to reduce violence in prison, particularly sexual abuse. More than a million people were sexually assaulted in federal and state prisons in the past 20 years, according to the Prison Rape Elimination Act passed by Congress in 2003.

Part of the problem is overcrowding in a system that costs American taxpayers $60 billion a year. Bureau of Justice statistics show U.S. federal prisons are about 40 percent over capacity. State prisons are a little better, running at about 100 to 115 percent in capacity.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle....&archived=False

2. As a conscious American citizen with a nephew who just entered the state incarceration system, I am totally opposed to mandatory sentencing/three strikes laws. After reading investigative journalist Eric Schlosser's book, Reefer Madness, I became convinced that mandatory/mininmum laws are insane. He spoke about this on PBS's FRONTLINE:

ERIC SCHLOSSER: Under the laws of fifteen states, you can get a life sentence for a nonviolent marijuana offense. And the average sentence for a convicted murder in this country is about six years. In the state of California, the average prison sentence for a convicted killer is about 3.3 years.

INTERVIEWER: What are some of the egregious federal cases you have come across or written about in terms of long prison terms for marijuana?

ERIC SCHLOSSER: One of the more interesting cases that I wrote about was the case of Mark Young, who was a hippie biker in Indiana, a rogue, who was very honest with me about some of the illegal activities that he had been involved with. But he had a very minor criminal record. He had been arrested twice on drug offenses--once for filing a false prescription, once for possessing a couple of quaalude. Both times he was given a $1 fine and never served a day in jail. And then he was arrested for serving as a middle man in a large marijuana transaction. He introduced some people who were growing marijuana to some people who wanted to buy marijuana and about 700 pounds of marijuana were exchanged in the transaction.

He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and sent to Levenworth penitentiary, one of the most dangerous federal prisons in the country. And I saw in his case a lot of the themes that applied across the board to the war on marijuana. He was put under enormous pressure to cooperate with the government and refused to do so, refused to testify against a friend of his and essentially received life without parole as a result.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh.../schlosser.html

3. Certainly. No one argues that a Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer, should ever get out of jail. Most, not all, murderers should not. Violent sexual predators should not. The seriously depraved, hardcore and unrepentant criminals who will commit crime-after-crime repeatedly should never be allowed to walk the streets as free men breathing fresh air again.

However, I see no reason that someone who rips off a 7-11 for $50 and doesn't harm anyone in the process or is addicted to drugs should be locked away forever, while a Jeffrey Skilling who chisels billions out of states and stockholders, should get a year or two in a country club prison, get paroled, write a book and wait for Hollywood to come calling.

4. For non-violent recidivists , drug treatment, parole, sentencing latitude and more emphasis upon rehabilitation are preferable to mandatory life sentences.

Three strike laws give the illusion of being "tough on crime" but what it does is pump the hapless criminal with the hardcore. Even if a judge knows that prison is not the best solution to the problem of a repeat offender, three strikes laws tie their hands. Politicians like them because when they run for reelection they can stand up and say they lock up criminals and throw away the key. But even the U.S. cannot build prisons fast enough and lock up all of the really dangerous criminals when they have to make way for those whom are sent away for life for dubious reasons.