Three strikes

[jdobbin]

I agree about the 3 strikes for violent crime and for repeat offenders.

But how much will incarcerating an individual for life cost?

This is the key question. It costs a hell of a lot more according to jurisdictions that have brought it about.

[Argus]

Sorry for your loss, but this is a point of law. Can you prove a negative?

You don't have to prove a negative. As he said, just make it automatic that after three major crimes you are sentenced to an indefinite term.

Then it's up to you to show why you should be given special consideration.

This is not all that different from a pre-sentencing report and hearing, where the defence tries to show the judge why the criminal should be given a lessor sentence instead of hammered with something major.

[Argus]

I agree about the 3 strikes for violent crime and for repeat offenders.

But how much will incarcerating an individual for life cost?

This is the key question. It costs a hell of a lot more according to jurisdictions that have brought it about.

A lot more than what?

If burglars were thrown in jail until they became little old men, maybe I wouldn't have to buy heavy duty locks, bars for my basement windows, and an alarm system. How many people out there are paying how much money for all this stuff because burglars are given a slap on the wrist, and then sent out to continue their fine work?

[myata]

Sorry for your loss, but this is a point of law. Can you prove a negative?

They don't have to prove negative. To me, they'd only need to prove that leaving them in the streets won't represent any measurable risk to the public. Going over the specifics of the previous crimes it shouldn't be very hard to establish with reasonable certainty.

[jbg]

Hell no!

If you have committed 3 indictable offenses, is that not proof positive that you are pathlogical and likely to keep it up?

Um, not at all, actually.

A previous course of action does not thus guarantee a repeat of said action.

It's a darn good predictor. I would not want to share a drink at a bar with a three-time violent predicate felon.

[jdobbin]

A lot more than what?

If burglars were thrown in jail until they became little old men, maybe I wouldn't have to buy heavy duty locks, bars for my basement windows, and an alarm system. How many people out there are paying how much money for all this stuff because burglars are given a slap on the wrist, and then sent out to continue their fine work?

The taxpayer. Three strikes became one of the biggest expenditures in California.

You think there would be no change in how much prisons and prisoners would cost?

[jbg]

The taxpayer. Three strikes became one of the biggest expenditures in California.

You think there would be no change in how much prisons and prisoners would cost?

And doesn't having recidivists on the street cost plenty as well?

[jdobbin]

And doesn't having recidivists on the street cost plenty as well?

In the some States, they put three time felons in jail for life. It costs more than if they were released after a standard sentence. Much more.

Depending on how far reaching the three strikes goes, it could be one of the most expensive promises that Harper could make. It certainly has been for California.

[jbg]

And doesn't having recidivists on the street cost plenty as well?

In the some States, they put three time felons in jail for life. It costs more than if they were released after a standard sentence. Much more.

Depending on how far reaching the three strikes goes, it could be one of the most expensive promises that Harper could make. It certainly has been for California.

Again, society as a whole pays in terms of safety, feelings of worry from having recidivists on street. This moves the cost from an indirect and very high one to a direct and quantifiable one.

[Borg]

There will be hell to pay in trying to pass this bill.

Libs and NDP will do their best to kill it.

Bottom line - three strikes you are out.

Charter and lawyers and social welfare and psychologists and media and so on will create havoc and make lots of money with this one.

Politicians will scream and cry and lament the poor bad guy is simply living out a life that started out bad.

I do not care.

You do the crime - you do the time.

You turn your life around and you can become a contributing member of society.

Do it three times and you are gone.

I want you off the street.

There is no justice system.

It is a legal system - in my opinion two very, very different things.

Announced today - a criminal convicted of 9 - yes 9 previous sexual offences against kids - has done or will do 16 of the 24 month sentence he was given - will do the reat of his time in a Kingstion half way house. Right beside a kids playground. Then out on the street again.

Justice? Ask the parents.

Legal system? I would suggest the parents will tell you that is what it is.

Lock them up and throw away the key. Put them on prison ships and leave them in the middle of the ocean. I do not have a care for their welfare as they are scum and can be treated as such.

Hell, do with them as you would a rabid dog.

Well, I suspect there will be at least a few who disagree with me - toss the stones folks. Then - if and when it happens to your or yours do not come crying about the bad, bad parole board or the legal system. Pray to God or your Gods it never hits your family - the tune changes dramatically when it does.

Time to take back the streets.

Borg

[jdobbin]

Again, society as a whole pays in terms of safety, feelings of worry from having recidivists on street. This moves the cost from an indirect and very high one to a direct and quantifiable one.

Since crime is down all over North America, and repeated offenders already serve longer sentences anyways, I don't see how effective keeping someone locked up into senior citizenship perhaps 40 or 50 years after their original crime really is.

[Charles Anthony]

Lock them up and throw away the key. Put them on prison ships and leave them in the middle of the ocean. I do not have a care for their welfare as they are scum and can be treated as such.

Hell, do with them as you would a rabid dog.

Well, I suspect there will be at least a few who disagree with me - toss the stones folks.

I like your idea of prison ships but I am going to play the devil's advocate here because of the "rabid dog" statement. Are you really ready to execute criminals?

I will say that you MUST "care for their welfare" whether you want to or not. It reflects on how we choose to deal with criminals. What if we can not afford to lock all criminals up and throw away the key?

What if it would be cheaper to simply increase police presence on the streets?

There might me a lot of social workers and rehabilitation workers and correctional service providers out of work. We might also see a lot less crime.

I would rather have security guards patrolling every single street in every single neighborhood.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think Baffin Island is a nice place to put a correctional facility. Security expenses would fall to almost nothing. You would need zero gaurds and zero maintenance staff. Drop off a barge of food and fuel once a year, and tell them to have a nice day. Let the sharks and the bears provide a secure perimeter for the criminals.

[jbg]

Again, society as a whole pays in terms of safety, feelings of worry from having recidivists on street. This moves the cost from an indirect and very high one to a direct and quantifiable one.

Since crime is down all over North America, and repeated offenders already serve longer sentences anyways, I don't see how effective keeping someone locked up into senior citizenship perhaps 40 or 50 years after their original crime really is.

Maybe that's why crime is down.

[jdobbin]

Maybe that's why crime is down.

Aging populations have lower crime than younger populations.

Here is what California has been thinking about the law over the last two years.

http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=396

[watching&waiting]

I can see where the 3 strikes and your in for life or until you can prove you have changed, would have some people worried about abuse. Sin ce this bill will only affect Sex offenders and violent criminals, there is really not too much to worry about. If they are mental issues or some other kind of factor in the equation it would be brought out at the hearing of the third trial offence. It would then be dealt with accordingly. I would alos have to say that we should be using the people in our prisons to do work for the community and that way ot would offset the costs of having them in jail. There are many lands that could do with clearing or cleaning, that would benefit the cities and town in our country. Along the way in this the guys may even learn a trade. For examples the public housing issue could easily addressed by making the prisoners build the homes and in doing so they would learn construction trades. So that if after the seven year period they must wait to apply for parole, they would now have some trade related experience in feild that pay enough to suppoert these guys and their families.

The 3 strikes you are out, mostly means in these contexts that you are sentenced to an indefinite period of time and you can not even hope to get out before 7 years has past, and even then, it is up to you to prove that you have now changed and sought the advantages of conselling and job skills to allow you to be a productive member of society. I fully support this act, and as I said above, there should be programs where these guys can learn skills etc. to make it possible to change them.

[jbg]

I do favor "three strikes". However, I do think there should be some judicial discretion, reviewable on appeal, to downwardly depart from "three strikes" where the result would be absurd, say, three minor street scuffles.

[jdobbin]

I do favor "three strikes". However, I do think there should be some judicial discretion, reviewable on appeal, to downwardly depart from "three strikes" where the result would be absurd, say, three minor street scuffles.

I think the Conservatives want to remove the judicial discretion though. They think it is abused and want the judges to have no choice.

[jbg]

I do favor "three strikes". However, I do think there should be some judicial discretion, reviewable on appeal, to downwardly depart from "three strikes" where the result would be absurd, say, three minor street scuffles.

I think the Conservatives want to remove the judicial discretion though. They think it is abused and want the judges to have no choice.

The law could be written to create a very strong "three strikes" presumption and require a written opinion as to the reasons for varying from it. This would force judges to think twice before exercising their liberal tendencies.

[Borg]

I do favor "three strikes". However, I do think there should be some judicial discretion, reviewable on appeal, to downwardly depart from "three strikes" where the result would be absurd, say, three minor street scuffles.

I Like your first sentence.

The remainder is a red herring statement.

This is for violent sexual crime - not some simple street scuffle.

No - repeat no judicial discretion.

Hell half of the problems with this country and the legal system stems from judges. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Yeah I know - the same red herring comment could be made at me.

But any judge who sentences a man to 24 months after he has already been convicted NINE TIMES previously for viloent sexual offenses against children - well - that seems to me to be a man/woman who perpetuates the problem.

There are examples of sheer judicial stupidity on a daily basis in this country.

Justice must not only be done - it must be seen to be done.

Perhaps it is time to toss some judges?

Yeah - we cannot - but they are a serious part of the problem.

Good ones exist - but far too many poor ones sit on the bench as well.

Also - someone on this board asked me if I am prepared to execute criminals.

Answer - YES!!

In fact if I sold lottery tickets at a buck a piece - the winner being allowed to throw the switch or to pull the triger or whatever - I would be a millionaire over night. A lot of people in this country support capital punishment - it will never be here again - but there are many who would support it in a heart beat.

Become a criminal and completely surrender your rights as a citizen. You are now a prisoner - do the crime and do the time. Hard time is better. More violent the crime - the harder the time. With no - repeat no parole for the more serious and violent time.

No concurrent sentences - consecutive only. No time reductions while waiting for your trial. Some have waited long and therefore are relaeased as they have experienced cruel and unusual punishment - tough - if found innocent you walk with compensation - not my discussion issue at present - if found guilty you go back to the cells.

Finally - life should mean life - not 17 years or whatever. You get life - you die in jail. No old folks home with friendly sttaff for you. No grandkids to bounce on your knee. A steel cot and a square room. If you kick off before the national average - then so be it.

Borg

[myata]

I think the main idea is that if there's any reasonable grounds to expect that a recidivist violent offender will reoffend again, the crown should have a tool to achieve it without undue stress (as the trend or pattern of violent behaviour would have already been established by the previous convictions). It doesn't have to be automatic, just that if the crown comes up with such a request, it'll be up to the criminal to convince the court that once released, they won't be a risk to the community.

The cost or general crime down arguments absolutely miss the point. The factor here is the risk of violent offence by a particular individual. Leaving them out on the street while knowing that they were at a significant risk to reoffend would be like leaving a bridge with a known structural defect in operation on the presumption that 1) it'd be to expensive to fix and 2) general trend in bridge failures has been downward.

[jbg]

Borg, agreed on violent sexual offenses. California has had some weird results from its laws (I forget the details) which should be avoided.

[jdobbin]

Borg, agreed on violent sexual offenses. California has had some weird results from its laws (I forget the details) which should be avoided.

Even the Rand Corporation says it puts people in prison for life sentences where it makes no sense.

The worst thing that could happen is that the law is put into place and then the prisons are undefunded just as they are in the U.S. for the worst offenders.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/14/supermax...g.ap/index.html

[Rue]

I believe we are in the position now of having to debate a 3 strike law or some other process like it for one simple reason-the sentences on crimes are too light and even after 3 crimes, people continue committing them.

The three strike law is just an exercise to try make up for light sentencing.

So the question is this. And you know what I am going to ask cuz you guys like me also ask it every day when we read the paper or watch t.v. Hwo is it people who murder, and rape and engage in violent crimes are getting back out on the streets so fast?

I mean is it just me or does it seem insane we only give people 10 year sentences for murder and then of course, for every day you serve you automatically have one day taken off because prisons are overcrowded so they created this system to make more room for new prisoners by getting rid of the old. So we have a criminal sentence that says its a 10 year sentence but its really 5. Then of that 5 years, 50% of that 5 years can be deducted for good behaviour. Good behaviour meaning, don't kill a guard while in jail, not much more because if you see these parole hearings it doesn't take much to show good behaviour.

So you ask me, sentencing should be a lot higher and each time you commit a crime, the sentence should automatically increase, so for example, your first conviction for sexual assault, your minimum sentence is 5 years and up to 25 depending on the severity of the violence, second sentence, minimum of 10 and up to 30, third minimum of 15 and up to 40, and so on.

If we increased the sentences automatically, that would mean something. What we have now are judges who are reluctant to award large time periods or who feel their hands are tied as to what they can sentence.

Our problem is our criminal convictions are too soft with violent crime.

And as for non violent crime of a large financial nature, instead of putting millionaires in gold courses to cool off for six months, they should be required to pay back every cent by working for charities and non profit organizations after they come out.

Now as for the presumption of innocence factor, its a non issue. This debate is with people ALREADY proven guilty.

As for the constitutional issues, I personally think this notion that convicted criminals should have the same constitutional rights as you and I including voting is insane. If you are convicted, for the entire period of your sentence your constitutional rights should be suspended because you no longer are in fact a citizen entitled to privileges of a law abiding person, no voting, no equal rights. You lose the right to be a citizen. Being a citizen is a privilege not an absolute right.

[Argus]

The three strike law is just an exercise to try make up for light sentencing.

Bingo. It's to make up for decades of bleeding heart liberal judges who WILL NOT get serious on violent crime. The sentencing guidelines have given them plenty of freedom, but no matter how terrible, how long, how consistent is an offender's record, judges have outright refused to move past the mid-point in sentencing guidelines. It's rare enough they even reach the mid-point. Most sentences are near the bottom of the guidelines.

When was the last time you saw anyone sent away for twenty or thirty years, or life, except where the judge's discretion has been removed? You can get life for a number of crimes other than murder, but it's never used. You can get life for manslaughter, but in general the sentence seems to be between 2-5 years. You can get ten years for assault, fourteen for aggravated assault. Anyone ever see a case where that kind of sentence was handed out? Hell, you can get five years just for threatening to assault someone. Think that's ever going to happen? Or the long sentences for sexual interference with a minor? Or Aggravated sexual assault? You can get life for that. Anyone ever read of that happening?

The laws are there, folks. But the kinds of people who have been appointed as judges are those who are of a similar mentality with the ruling elites - mush-minded and sympathetic to killers, rapists and child molesters.