Should “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” be done away with?

Sgt Kelli Mays — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 01:08:54 -0400

http://www.oann.com/senators-propose-sentencing-reform-to-reduce-prison-overcrowding/

Senators propose sentencing reform to reduce prison overcrowding

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. senators on Thursday proposed a bipartisan plan for reforming criminal justice, aiming to ditch harsh sentencing laws that lead to prison overcrowding and to limit…

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 2 at 2015 2:24 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:24:44 -0400

No. It costs society more having criminals running loose amongst us than building prisons to keep them away from honest, peaceful people.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 2:39 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 02:39:36 -0400

Three strikes sounded good in theory but IMHO it relegated criminals to no jobs, no homes and no food and given that, what would be the alternative? So, I think we need to find solutions especially for smaller crimes that people are not hurt.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 7:37 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 07:37:47 -0400

Stupid idea ... the minor drugs offense are the reason why the jail is over populated!!! deal with that first ... *hint" legalizing it like alcohol and cigarette.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 8:18 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:18:55 -0400

Our system is supposed to be rehabilitative, retributive, and punitive all at once. It is certainly punitive, and provides plenty of retribution, but it seems short on actual rehabilitation. Three strikes was meant to encourage people to reform. I'd like to see the reform success stories. But our penal system at large should either take another look at rehabilitation (like the new Attorney General is advocating) or we should stop kidding ourselves about it.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 8:43 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:43:49 -0400

why we don't make it 2 strikes and you are out for violent crimes, pedophiles, etc? first time it can be called a mistake and you have one last chance, do it again and you will never see daylight again

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 2 at 2015 9:37 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:37:19 -0400

Three strikes and your out seems like a reasonable approach to penalize repeat offenders Sgt Kelli Mays. Granted it needs to be applied reasonably and should not be applied to parking violations or loitering at the low end of the scale or armed bank robbery, homicide or rapes at the extreme end.
To me in makes the most sense for premeditated property crimes.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 2 at 2015 10:28 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:28:29 -0400

I's ask them to show the stats that showed it worked. I'm sure the for profit prison industry doesn't want it to go away. And can it include politicians?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 10:36 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:36:27 -0400

Hmm. I mean 3 felonies certainly indicates an unwillingness or lack of ability to reform, so I'm not sure. I think there is also a deterrent there for those with 2 strikes. Maybe something to look into.

Response by CW3 Eric W. S. made Oct 2 at 2015 10:38 AM

CW3 Eric W. S. — Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:38:10 -0400

I am under the belief that if you are on your third strike, you don't need to go to prison, you need to be out of breath, permanently... The easiest way to avoid prison overcrowding is to eliminate repeat offenders.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Oct 3 at 2015 8:29 AM

LTC Kevin B. — Sat, 03 Oct 2015 08:29:29 -0400

Yes, it needs to go, except for cases of repeat offenders for violent crimes. Those "three strikes" laws were pushed by the for-profit prison industry as a way of locking in their revenue streams. Talk about crony capitalism...there's a great example.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Oct 6 at 2015 6:11 AM

PO1 John Miller — Tue, 06 Oct 2015 06:11:00 -0400

In my opinion yes. Furthermore, people convicted of non-violent crimes or "victimless" crimes (especially the latter) should be released early. I would even hazard to say that people convicted of "crimes" like possession of/selling a plant should not only be released but have their sentences overturned, revoked, whatever it's called where it's removed from your records and all your personal civil liberties (voting, gun ownership, etc.) are restored without prejudice.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 7 at 2015 11:33 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 11:33:18 -0400

YES

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2015 8:03 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Oct 2015 08:03:27 -0400

Any type of mandatory sentencing need to be done away with.