If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   I'll take "Prison Sentences That Are Out Of Proportion To The Crime Committed" for $200, Alex   (artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 189
    More: Followup, Mr. Trebek, prison sentences, life sentences, The Chronicle, heroin addiction, receiving stolen property, burglary  
•       •       •

22560 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Aug 2011 at 2:34 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-08-02 03:16:28 PM
seems perfectly fine to me. but i don't get caught robbing game show hosts.
 
2011-08-02 03:16:48 PM

Gosling: Which, again: no matter how harsh the sentence, you gotta catch them first before you can do jack shiat to them. My issue is that, once you know you've hit the third strike, there's no remaining incentive to turn yourself in or behave yourself in any way. Maybe some turn themselves in anyway or don't do anything else in the period prior to capture. But a lot don't.


This isn't like a parking ticket. When you get a felony conviction, you nearly always go to prison. There is no way you could "forget" how many felonies you have. In the off chance you are thinking of committing a crime and you aren't sure if it's a felony, you probably should not commit that crime.

This isn't a game of trickery. This is pretty simple. If you keep committing felony crimes, they will lock you away.

The easy solution is to not commit felonies. But you seem to ignore that. I guess you are advocating there shouldn't be any harsh sentences because people will just decide there's no incentive to not commit crimes.
 
2011-08-02 03:19:55 PM
She deserves death. Any dimwit, who lives in a 3 strikes state, who can't keep her damn dumb hands off other peoples property deserves whatever she gets.
 
2011-08-02 03:20:18 PM
Her retirement plan just came together.
 
2011-08-02 03:21:02 PM

notmtwain: Seems to me that the third strike law is double jeopardy.

/"nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb"


Seems to me you should go to law school before practicing law, amateur law practice man.

She was not acquitted of those crimes. Sentence enhancements for prior convictions have long been held constitutional.

And yeah, can't do the time, don't commit the your fourth strike in a three strike state.
 
2011-08-02 03:21:38 PM

ph0rk: cman: If she has not learned after her first two convictions, would she ever learn?

Could she be rehabilitated? No

So why keep her alive?


Um, because she's just a thief, not a murderer?
 
2011-08-02 03:22:35 PM
SHUT UP AND GET A LAWYER, BIATCH!
 
2011-08-02 03:22:42 PM
LOTN

/ probably not a thief

Would make one hell of a pickpocket or three-card-monte player, though.
 
2011-08-02 03:23:01 PM

doglover: This where the muslims have the advantage.

Thieves lose a hand. There can't be a third strike.


Oh yeah?

Link (new window)
 
2011-08-02 03:23:27 PM

Gosling: serpent_sky: I just have a hard time equating the felony of theft of property with crimes like murder and rape (which I can't help but say in the first-degree, should be one strike and one strike only).

Yeah, see, here's the big problem with the third-strike law. If you know it's going to be your third strike, you've got nothing to lose by just up and giving the cops something to give you a third strike over. If you're going away for life anyway, hell, might as well just shank Trebek too while you're at it.


That was the argument when 3 strikes was first being debated in California. Didn't happen. What did happen was a big drop in crime rates as people bailed out of the state, were locked up, or became afraid to commit crimes.
 
2011-08-02 03:24:57 PM

Cubansaltyballs: Gordon Bennett: In other, unrelated news, privately owned prisons in California are now more profitable than ever before thanks to housing more inmates at public cost and additional profits from contracting out prison labour for which they pay only a small fraction of the state minimum wage and largely withhold in their own investments until the prisoner is released..

Actually, if you knew anything, you'd know that all state prisons in California are owned and operated by the state.

But thanks for trying. Oops, I meant to say... start knowing stuff before you talk like you know stuff.


They send them to private prisons in other states. (new window)
 
2011-08-02 03:25:48 PM
It does seem harsh, but like has been said before, it's not as if this is a secret policy, the three strikes law has been around for a long while now, and if you can't get through life without committing three felonies then society does not need you.
 
2011-08-02 03:26:10 PM

jjorsett: That was the argument when 3 strikes was first being debated in California. Didn't happen. What did happen was a big drop in crime rates as people bailed out of the state, were locked up, or became afraid to commit crimes.


To be honest, if the reasoning is, "Don't threaten them with life in prison because they are a habitual offender because they will just commit murder", that kind of proves that habitual criminals should not really be allowed in society. They'll either keep committing felonies forever, or they'll kill someone... real good argument for setting them free with a balloon and a lollipop.
 
2011-08-02 03:26:11 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: So why keep her alive?

Um, because she's just a thief, not a murderer?



and ?

100 years ago people were hung for the first act of theft on courthouse lawns 10 min after the trial and we had a much lower crime rate prison is not a durance and it does not reform but death does prevent repeat offenders

/death penality should be greatly expanded and include rapist, thieves, oil executives, most members of congress, and anyone that drives more then 4 miles below the speed limit
 
2011-08-02 03:27:10 PM

Gordon Bennett: They send them to private prisons in other states. (new window)


So where does "Private prisons in other states" = "privately owned prisons in California"????

One of those things is not like the others...
 
2011-08-02 03:29:46 PM
serpent_sky: I just have a hard time equating the felony of theft of property with crimes like murder and rape (which I can't help but say in the first-degree, should be one strike and one strike only).

Well look up Richard Allen Davis' extensive record before he brutally killed Polly Klass, and then go tell her father three strikes isn't "fair." Lesser felonies often lead to bigger ones. That son of a biatch committed scores of property crimes that, in a non-lefty state like California, would have drawn him a life sentence long before the child murder he finally committed. The people in California became fed up with career criminals having to murder someone to get off of the streets, so they passed three strikes.

Sometimes violent crimes happen during "property" crimes like burglaries, BTW. You break into someone's home, that is a very bad thing, that can lead to violence, which is why it was a felony in English common law 400 years ago and remains so today.
 
2011-08-02 03:32:34 PM

Gosling: serpent_sky: I just have a hard time equating the felony of theft of property with crimes like murder and rape (which I can't help but say in the first-degree, should be one strike and one strike only).

Yeah, see, here's the big problem with the third-strike law. If you know it's going to be your third strike, you've got nothing to lose by just up and giving the cops something to give you a third strike over. If you're going away for life anyway, hell, might as well just shank Trebek too while you're at it.


That's the problem with states that don't have a death penalty. Those states that do have one last card to play with such a miscreant.
 
2011-08-02 03:33:36 PM
Surprised they didn't try her in International court as well since Trebek is Canadian. Suck it Trebek!
 
2011-08-02 03:33:59 PM

Mr Guy: and life imprisonment is wasteful of taxpayer dollars, therefore, on the third strike, you have 24 hours to find a country willing to accept you in exile or face summary execution.


newsletter:SUBSCRIBE
 
2011-08-02 03:34:12 PM

cardex: 100 years ago people were hung for the first act of theft on courthouse lawns 10 min after the trial and we had a much lower crime rate




Citation needed.

I always find it amusing when people assert as fact stuff they want to believe.
 
2011-08-02 03:38:04 PM

Gordon Bennett: In other, unrelated news, privately owned prisons in California are now more profitable than ever before thanks to housing more inmates at public cost and additional profits from contracting out prison labour for which they pay only a small fraction of the state minimum wage and largely withhold in their own investments until the prisoner is released..


Citation Desired

/Oooo Baby
//Safe word: I has it.
 
2011-08-02 03:40:00 PM

Gosling: ConConHead: Sorry. Three strikes is very generous. Doesn't matter who the victim is. You shouldn't be stealing. And just because she FACES life doesn't mean she'll get it. Probably just 25, with time off half-way through for being a non-violence offender.

However generous it may be, it also creates a 'nothing to lose' situation on the third strike.

You ever watch those police video shows? Which are the wildest, most dangerous-to-life-limb-cops-and-public chases? The ones where the suspect knows full well he's going away for keeps if he's caught. When the suspect reaches that conclusion, all inhibitions go out the window. Ramming through police-car roadblocks. Ramming through traffic. Opening fire on the cops and going down in a blaze of glory.

I don't know about you, but I would like to have it so we cut as far down on nothing-to-lose situations as possible. You got lucky this time; this guy didn't reach that conclusion. You might not be next time.

And 'well, he shouldn't be stealing then' really just ignores the issue at hand. That was the point between strikes two and three. The guy had something to lose at that point. The secondary issue, the one I'm addressing, comes up after strike three had already been committed. He didn't think this merited a strike. But let's say he did think it merited a strike. Now what? Let's say this guy were still on the loose. What's to stop him from going as big as he possibly can before his capture?


The Death Penalty
 
2011-08-02 03:40:22 PM
arch.413chan.net
 
2011-08-02 03:40:46 PM
Sounds to me like she just needs therapist.
cdn0.sbnation.com
 
2011-08-02 03:40:59 PM

Mr Rusty Shackleford: Seems reasonable to me, considering the whole 3 strikes thingy. Hell, it seems reasonable for a first strike now that I think of it. Stealing is a good way of declaring that you're completely unnecessary in every possible way.


I bet the RIAA would just love you ;)

I can't say I have a problem with the idea of increasingly harsh sentences for criminals who keep committing crimes. I certainly don't have a problem with this jackass going away for 25 years. If you choose to break reasonable laws of society, you deserve to be locked away from society. If you choose to do it several times, you deserve to be locked away from society for a good long time.

As for overcrowding, I can solve that tomorrow. Decriminalize drugs, and save prison for real criminals, not some guy smoking weed on his back porch.
 
2011-08-02 03:41:43 PM
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!
 
2011-08-02 03:42:17 PM

Gosling: ConConHead: Sorry. Three strikes is very generous. Doesn't matter who the victim is. You shouldn't be stealing. And just because she FACES life doesn't mean she'll get it. Probably just 25, with time off half-way through for being a non-violence offender.

However generous it may be, it also creates a 'nothing to lose' situation on the third strike.


If anyone thinks "I'll be a cop killer because I might as well be", they're dangerous and should be locked away for life.

A person may be driven to steal in various situations, but a "good" person will do it in a way to minimize violence and impact (i.e. not sneaking into a persons dwellings while they are there) and when they get caught will admit it and be understand that they need to pay the consequences. If I committed a felony, I admit that I would try to avoid being caught, but not to the point of killing people or otherwise victimizing people. That's the difference and pretty much the definition of the criminal mind -- disregard for others. Anyone who demonstrates consistent disregard for others doesn't belong in society.
 
2011-08-02 03:45:25 PM
3 strikes obviously doesn't work in the real world. It works in imagination land, where prison is free, but not in California. She quoted the law herself, she's aware of how serious her offence is, and what the penalty for her third strike is. She doesn't see it as a deterrent, which means it's not WORKING AS A DETERRENT for people like this woman.

She's probably a kleptomaniac or has some other mental illness. Who the hell knows, there's clearly nothing we would call 'logic' going through her head.


3 strike system: doesn't work
this woman's brain: doesn't work

What the hell do you do now? When criminals are too stupid to be afraid of a life sentence, WHERE DO YOU TURN!?
 
2011-08-02 03:45:26 PM

FarkinHostile: Citation needed


here (new window)
and here (new window)
and here (new window)
 
2011-08-02 03:46:30 PM
The penal system is guilty in this case.
At $40,000 per inmate per year, we should send them all to graduate school instead.

/penal
 
2011-08-02 03:46:59 PM
Mandatory sentencing schemes are retarded, and while I know courts disagree, I believe they violate the separation of powers doctrine.

Moreover, life sentences are, in all but the most extreme cases, generally a stupid proposition (especially in state's where life means life). The cost to incarcerate this woman, to pay for the roof over her head, her meals, and her medical care will greatly outweigh the cost to society if she were released after a reasonable period of time - even if she subsequently reoffends.

Politicians in the quest to "get tough on crime" keep trying to out do one another without understanding that harsh sentencing has a minimal impact on crime rates. If she is a junkie, jail her and get her treatment. Place her on lifetime probation and require her to pay for random drug testing. If she flunks, put her in the can for a while. But locking up people for life who are addicted to drugs makes little sense.
 
2011-08-02 03:47:34 PM
In this particular case I agree with the three-strikes law as it was intended, to get repeat offenders back into prison where they belong -- if the repeat offenses are crimes AGAINST another. This dumb tweaker obviously hasn't learned its lesson and should not be allowed to run loose to steal and tweak day after day. I have to wonder just how many petty thefts this creature and her undoutedly equally scummy circle of crankster-ganksters have committed. May sound petty, but it sucks to have to replace constantly disappearing things. Worse, tweakers are bad news, not just because the constant stealing ruins everything for everyone, but when they go into tweaker rage people get hurt and killed. I've been there, I've lived it, I've seen it, there are very few tweaks that are as bad as this one that ever get their crap together again, and usually that takes long periods of incarceration.

That being said, the three strikes law should NOT apply when the third crime is a non-invasive infraction. Petty theft counts, but having a doobie in the pocket doesn't. We want to get the idiot thieves who never learn off the streets for good. But do we really want to throw folks in prison for life for having the bad luck of being searched by some crazed cop? If this creature's third strike was something like drinking in public ( an activity I am sure she enjoys ), should that mean life?

/ screw you humans, I'm going home
 
2011-08-02 03:47:36 PM
I'm on the fence on this issue. While going to jail for life and ultimately costing the tax-payers(me) more money for such a small crime is kind of ridiculous. There has to be some kind of deterrent for habitual offenders. Although, even with a harsh punishment of life behind bars, these morons continue to break the law. That, simply boggles my mind...

//Best quote from Liar,Liar: "He knocked over another ATM. This time at knife point. He needs your legal advice."
///"Stop breaking the law, farkhole!"
 
2011-08-02 03:48:00 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: ph0rk: cman: If she has not learned after her first two convictions, would she ever learn?

Could she be rehabilitated? No

So why keep her alive?

Um, because she's just a thief, not a murderer?


What is the point of differentiating crimes when the punishment is the same: removal from society?
 
2011-08-02 03:48:46 PM

MBooda: Sounds to me like she just needs therapist.
[cdn0.sbnation.com image 488x351]


THANK YOU.

Geez, people - 3 pages, no freaking anal bum cover or onto your game references?!?
 
2011-08-02 03:56:47 PM
What if her name was Sarah Conner?
 
jvl
2011-08-02 03:57:45 PM
Burglarizing a room where people are sleeping is not a minor crime subby.
 
jvl
2011-08-02 04:01:09 PM

raubtier: 3 strikes obviously doesn't work in the real world. It works in imagination land, where prison is free, but not in California. She quoted the law herself, she's aware of how serious her offence is, and what the penalty for her third strike is. She doesn't see it as a deterrent, which means it's not WORKING AS A DETERRENT for people like this woman.


You're incorrect; three strikes is working exactly as intended in this case. Your error is in thinking that three strikes is meant as a deterrent. It isn't; three strikes is a rule which recognizes that some people will re-offend no matter how many times they are sent to prison, and that we should just cut to the chase and keep them in jail.
 
2011-08-02 04:06:24 PM

cardex: FarkinHostile: Citation needed

here (new window)
and here (new window)
and here (new window)



Well, I stand corrected. I took a look at your links, and they are pretty convincing evidence. Yet, in one of them they gave many reasons why the crime rates have gone up so much, including massive urbanization, prohibition, the drug war, gun control, ect. Also, it is pretty clear that the death penalty is not a factor in lower crime rates, as states without it have had consistently lower murder rates:


deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rat es


So it seems that it is a much more complicated problem than can be solved by just killing everyone who breaks the law.
 
2011-08-02 04:08:57 PM
3rd strike references previous convictions. Justice is getting a penalty equal to your crime. Being a repeat offender isn't the crime. The crime is the crime. It amounts to: our justice system doesn't trust you, have some more years in jail. It's completely unrelated to any form of justice.

This resembles vengeance and classifies the individual as bad instead of the crime. This is not the point of a justice system.

It should be unconstitutional as a cruel punishment.
 
2011-08-02 04:09:38 PM

Weigard: Stop breaking the law, asshole.


No.... That would require some type of responsibility over one's actions.

Can't have that.
 
2011-08-02 04:09:40 PM
This is one of the reasons why California keeps having to cut faculty, staff and classes from its state colleges at a time when a college education is even more important to those who want even a chance at the middle class. Out of a budget of $122.7 billion for 2010-2011, California spent over $10 billion on prisons, and yet there's another round of tuiton hikes coming this fall for both the CSU (California State University) and UC (University of California) system students.

In the last budget there were cuts to Medi-Cal, reductions in UC and CSU budgets, reductions in CalWORKS funds (welfare to work through student aid), Cal Grants cuts (college tuition aid), SSI cuts, Community College cuts and others totaling $11.1 billion. Meanwhile expenditures for state prisons and county jails has skyrocketed because of idiot policies like three strikes. The state prison system is at 160% of capacity, with 33 prisons at 200% capacity, putting two and three inmates in one person cells and bunkbeds stacked three high in every available space.

In 1980, 3% of the state's general fund went to pay for prisons, and 10% paid for higher education. In 1995 spending on prisons rose and spending on higher education fell to about 8 % each (coincidentally a year after prop 184 - three strikes - was passed). As of 2010 state prisons now take about 11% of the state budget, while higher education gets only 7.5%. We spend biilions more locking people away as money-sucking economic negatives than we do to help them become educated economic positives, and it's only getting worse.

When you put pissants like this admitted idiot in prison for life (and at her age that could be another 30 to 40 years) for non-violent crimes like theft, the tax money you shred from your paycheck every week can't go toward the things you need, only down the black hole that is the prison system. As of 2010 one in six prisoners in California is doing life without parole, and by 2020 better than 16% of those lifers will be over 65. Medical care for these people is going to cost many more billions ($1.8 billion in 2010), and we will be paying every penny of it.

She did say one smart thing in the article, probably one of the only moments of clarity she's had lately, that she should do some time (if found guilty) but life imprisonment for what amounts to petty theft is a bit much.

We are going to have to make a choice:
THIS:
assets.thefiscaltimes.com

OR THIS:
www.bostonpic.org

Where should your tax dollars go?
 
2011-08-02 04:12:14 PM

rewind2846: When you put pissants like this admitted idiot in prison for life (and at her age that could be another 30 to 40 years) for non-violent crimes like theft,



Burglary is not just theft and is considered a violent crime. It's not like she shoplifted.
 
2011-08-02 04:12:56 PM

doglover: This where the muslims have the advantage.

Thieves lose a hand. There can't be a third strike.


Jim Abbott would like to flip you off:

3.bp.blogspot.com

/but can't with his glove on
 
2011-08-02 04:15:18 PM

rewind2846: We are going to have to make a choice:
THIS:
assets.thefiscaltimes.com

OR THIS:
www.bostonpic.org

Where should your tax dollars go?


I was always a fan of transportation as a sentence option. Prison for 10 years or have you citizenship removed and you get to move to *spins wheel* Kenya. It worked for Britain. Thanks to that program there are now English speaking people in many more places across the globe.
 
2011-08-02 04:18:06 PM

StanTheMan: Well look up Richard Allen Davis' extensive record before he brutally killed Polly Klass, and then go tell her father three strikes isn't "fair." Lesser felonies often lead to bigger ones. That son of a biatch committed scores of property crimes that, in a non-lefty state like California, would have drawn him a life sentence long before the child murder he finally committed. The people in California became fed up with career criminals having to murder someone to get off of the streets, so they passed three strikes.


I didn't say it isn't something that should be applied at times, but there should be criteria for it beyond a simple "three strikes". Much like "zero tolerance", it is unwise to have something like that that applies across the board, no matter what the circumstances may be. I'm sure that man did belong locked up for life well before he murdered that woman. I'm not saying that 3 strikes is always wrong, or unfair. I am sure there are many times it is used, and used well. That said, if it simply applies, it takes away thought and consideration from the process that I think should absolutely be there when deciding another person's life fate, even if they are criminals.

Sometimes violent crimes happen during "property" crimes like burglaries, BTW. You break into someone's home, that is a very bad thing, that can lead to violence, which is why it was a felony in English common law 400 years ago and remains so today.
I would have addressed this earlier, but I had actual work to do. I do see the difference and agree that burglary should be a felony and if you have done it three times, you pose a great risk to others, as well as yourself (because who knows what someone may do to you for breaking into their home as well. So in that case, i do not think three unrepentant burglaries (as others pointed out) is an unreasonable application of the three strikes law. This is clearly someone intent to burgle homes, and nothing will stop that.

Unfortunately, as others have said, prisons are not designed to rehabilitate,. which should be the goal at all times. Get these people in a way that they can assimilate into society when they are released, and won't re-offend, or you have failed. Unfortunately, not only do most prisons miss this point, they tend to turn people out worse than they were before they went in.
 
2011-08-02 04:19:21 PM

FarkinHostile: rewind2846: When you put pissants like this admitted idiot in prison for life (and at her age that could be another 30 to 40 years) for non-violent crimes like theft,


Burglary is not just theft and is considered a violent crime. It's not like she shoplifted.


That's what I said... it shouldn't be classified as a violent crime. Violent crimes are crimes committed (IMO) against persons, not things. If you steal something of mine and I'm not there, it's not a violent crime. If you put a gun in my ribs or threaten me in any way when you steal from me, it's a violent crime.

That's the difference, or at least it should be.
 
2011-08-02 04:25:43 PM

rewind2846: FarkinHostile: rewind2846: When you put pissants like this admitted idiot in prison for life (and at her age that could be another 30 to 40 years) for non-violent crimes like theft,


Burglary is not just theft and is considered a violent crime. It's not like she shoplifted.

That's what I said... it shouldn't be classified as a violent crime. Violent crimes are crimes committed (IMO) against persons, not things. If you steal something of mine and I'm not there, it's not a violent crime. If you put a gun in my ribs or threaten me in any way when you steal from me, it's a violent crime.

That's the difference, or at least it should be.



Ever been burglarized? I have. Me, my GF and her pitbull all slept through it. (Too many glasses of wine on my part, but I digress.) I have personally never felt as violated as I did then, and had I or my GF woke up to go use the bathroom who knows what could have happened. It was a long time before we got over that. To know that we were helpless, that the maggot could have done whatever he wanted to us......

Sorry, but as a victim I disagree that burglary is not a violent crime. I'd rather been mugged.
 
2011-08-02 04:26:31 PM

raubtier: 3 strikes obviously doesn't work in the real world. It works in imagination land, where prison is free, but not in California. She quoted the law herself, she's aware of how serious her offence is, and what the penalty for her third strike is. She doesn't see it as a deterrent, which means it's not WORKING AS A DETERRENT for people like this woman.

She's probably a kleptomaniac or has some other mental illness. Who the hell knows, there's clearly nothing we would call 'logic' going through her head.


3 strike system: doesn't work
this woman's brain: doesn't work

What the hell do you do now? When criminals are too stupid to be afraid of a life sentence, WHERE DO YOU TURN!?


umm.. you put them in prison for life. exactly what this story is about. If they prove they can't live among civilized people, then they shouldn't be allowed to.
 
2011-08-02 04:29:41 PM

rewind2846:
When you put pissants like this admitted idiot in prison for life (and at her age that could be another 30 to 40 years) for non-violent crimes like theft, the tax money you shred from your paycheck every week can't go toward the things you need, only down the black hole that is the prison system.


I'd be interested in seeing the math comparison between stuffing a career criminal in jail for 40 years, and putting her in jail 1 year at a time for 40 years with the associated costs of the police capture, jury trial, inmate processing (both in and out), etc. There are a lot of criminals in non-3-strikes states who get out of jail and get re-arrested within a week.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out they're saving money by eliminating all the repetitive middleman work and just keeping her behind bars.

And like I said before, if you want to solve prison overcrowding and slash the prison budget, decriminalize drugs. Prohibition against alcohol didn't work, led to atrociously high law enforcement costs (and the rise in power of the mob). Prohibition against drugs isn't working, is leading to atrociously high law enforcement costs (and the rise in power of street gangs). We'd solve a whole lot of problems if we'd just end this ridiculous war on drugs.
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report