Friday, November 6, 2009

You're Out!

NPR recently did a series of stories on California's "Three Strikes" law. I listened to the stories and did a little internet research on the law. I am by no means an expert, but (for any readers who are unfamiliar with the concept) the basic premise is this:

The law's initial goal was to prevent the re-release of repeat offenders. The law states that offenders who have committed a third felony must receive a life sentence, but is eligible for parole after 25 years. However, there are some exceptions, primarily that both judges and prosecutors have leeway to "ignore" earlier felonies if they don't want to seek a three-strikes conviction, or if the result seems like it would go against the spirit of the law. Nine years ago, a new law was passed requiring drug treatment (rather than a three-strikes conviction) for people arrested for drug possession.

(Corrections would be appreciated if I've misstated anything.)

A lot of the controversy from this law arises from the following fact: two of the three felonies covered by the Three Strikes law must be violent felonies. There is no requirement, though, that the third felony (the one that could put someone away for life) be a violent felony. What's been happening a lot is that people will have two previous violent felonies, and then get locked up for life for stealing $100 or something like that. One guy (according to NPR) was locked up for 25 to life for swiping a piece of pizza from 4 kids. So, that stuff happens.

But I'm going to say something controversial at this point: I don't really care what the third felony is.

Here's why: someone has already committed two violent felonies. Maybe it's due to my lack of faith in humanity, but I feel like it's only a matter of time before they commit another one; they're in front of a judge for a third felony, so obviously their prior experiences failed to teach them to stop breaking the law. Personally, I'd much rather that this person be locked up for stealing golf clubs than for bludgeoning someone to death with said golf clubs.

But that's just me.

There's lots more that could be said on this issue, but now I have to get to work...

1 comment:

  1. I'm with you on this one. Furthermore, I think the leeway is stupid. A felony is a felony is a felony, and a violent felony is... you get the point. Three felonies? I would have to aim for that. If someone can do it without even trying, we're probably better off...

    ReplyDelete