Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (423931)	7/7/2003 6:31:51 PM
From: Jerrel Peters	Respond to of 769670

Yes, those "property crimes" should not be punished. Instead those criminals should be told to stop that foolishness or risk being banished from the midnight basketball courts for life! Sheesh...no wonder California is in the toilet...leftist liberals have ruined everything they touch.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (423931)	7/7/2003 6:59:19 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I agree. I think it should be 3 strikes for violent offenders, not every crime. But then again, there should be some latitude for the Judge there too. Say 3 domestic violence convictions and the guy gets life. That's rough if it was only pushing and shoving as a lot of convictions are. A year, not life. And then theres a double jeopardy issue to it too. Because you are being sentenced to serve time again for offenses that you already served time for and were released. If the 1st two convictions have any bearing on the sentence there's double jeopardy.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (423931)	7/9/2003 2:24:43 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 769670

Agreed. Sidney's response sounds reasonable.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (423931)	7/9/2003 3:05:01 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Respond to of 769670

I'm not so sure. I was initially against the law, but I read somewhere (sorry, don't have the link, darn it) that it did seem to be working as a deterrent to crime. Of course, there is a potential for abuse, but I have not seen cases of that (does not mean there are not some). Would be interested to see if anyone has links to any studies on the CA law consequences, as I (and others, I'm sure) are still on the fence on this one. Here is a before the vote Rand study: rand.org here is one pro-3 strikes impact study; don't know if this group is political or neutral: claremont.org Here is an anti-3 strikes: cjcj.org