|
Post by bernard on Feb 9, 2015 10:38:30 GMT -6
The three strikes law mandates harsher sentences for people who have committed three felonies. None of those three is ever recidivism itself. So give me an argument that recidivism itself is a crime, rather than an aggravating circumstance that places statutory limits on the discretion of the judge during sentencing California voters punish recidivism with the three strikes law. That's the whole point, and that's what the left finds so objectionable about it. The nature of the triggering crime doesn't matter. Sure. But are you actually charged with "recidivism"? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 9, 2015 10:59:17 GMT -6
Sure. But are you actually charged with "recidivism"? I don't think so. You are charged with a "third strike offense," under the law. www.courts.ca.gov/20142.htm
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 9, 2015 11:04:49 GMT -6
What makes you think it is difficult to avoid breaking the law, first time around? Anecdotal evidence from the felons I know. I don't believe in a one-strike law, because it would vitiate the whole point of proportionate sentencing, and would be an open invitation to the violent to commit murder.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 10, 2015 21:54:39 GMT -6
Sure. But are you actually charged with "recidivism"? I don't think so. You are charged with a "third strike offense," under the law. www.courts.ca.gov/20142.htmYou're confusing a law that increases the penalty for a third felony with one that defines a new felony. The link supports my view, not yours.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 10, 2015 21:55:45 GMT -6
What makes you think it is difficult to avoid breaking the law, first time around? Anecdotal evidence from the felons I know. Criminals whine that it's hard not to commit crimes and you believe them. I hadn't thought you so credulous.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 10, 2015 21:57:09 GMT -6
it would vitiate the whole point of proportionate sentencing, and would be an open invitation to the violent to commit murder. But you support a three strikes law, which is an open invitation to third-time offenders to commit murder.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 11, 2015 7:13:54 GMT -6
you support a three strikes law, which is an open invitation to third-time offenders to commit murder. Actually the third-time offenders are in prison. They are not free to commit murder. The murder rate n California is as low as it is because of the three-strikes law.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 11, 2015 10:38:55 GMT -6
you support a three strikes law, which is an open invitation to third-time offenders to commit murder. Actually the third-time offenders are in prison. They are not free to commit murder. As the offender is committing his third offense, however minor, he has the incentive to round it up to murder for the purposes of removing witnesses. I find it odd that this consideration, which weighs heavily in your balance when it comes to first-time offenses, is one that you suddenly neglect when defending the three strikes rule.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 11, 2015 11:01:06 GMT -6
I am not comfortable with the 3/strikes law.The punishment does not fit the crime.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 11, 2015 11:07:52 GMT -6
you support a three strikes law, which is an open invitation to third-time offenders to commit murder. Actually the third-time offenders are in prison. They are not free to commit murder. No one got murdered from inside the walls in California? It is not the third time offenders commiting murder who are incarcerated. Meanwhile murderers & rapist get out.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 11, 2015 11:37:40 GMT -6
No one got murdered from inside the walls in California? They do but those don't count. It is not the third time offenders commiting murder who are incarcerated. Meanwhile murderers & rapist get out. This statement doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 11, 2015 11:38:16 GMT -6
I am not comfortable with the 3/strikes law.The punishment does not fit the crime. It does in California.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 11, 2015 11:42:09 GMT -6
As the offender is committing his third offense, however minor, he has the incentive to round it up to murder for the purposes of removing witnesses. I find it odd that this consideration, which weighs heavily in your balance when it comes to first-time offenses, is one that you suddenly neglect when defending the three strikes rule. Except that the consideration isn't reasonable. The disincentive to commit the third strike is greater than the incentive to go all in and commit murder. If one punishes all first offenses the same as murder, which is what you seem to be suggesting, there is no virtue in moral restraint. Anyone getting a parking ticket might as well kill the person that issued it, and go after his/her family members as well.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 11, 2015 12:24:58 GMT -6
No one got murdered from inside the walls in California? They do but those don't count. It is not the third time offenders commiting murder who are incarcerated. Meanwhile murderers & rapist get out. This statement doesn't make sense. Killing inside does not count? When you find almost 700 people doing 25 yrs to life for simple drug possession, 181 stolen property,. Thar's the part I do not think the voters ever had intentions of targeting. Strange, commit a murder & you may get out in 8 or 10 yrs. If you murder someone inside the walls just more yrs added,even if they are serving" life w/o parole already. What does not make sense is the 3/strikes laws.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 11, 2015 13:44:36 GMT -6
Killing inside does not count? Not if either the killer or victim is in for murder. When you find almost 700 people doing 25 yrs to life for simple drug possession, 181 stolen property,. Thar's the part I do not think the voters ever had intentions of targeting. I disagree. Those are all serious felonies. There is no such thing as "simple" drug possession here. If you're in prison in California, you were caught with enough to sell. commit a murder & you may get out in 8 or 10 yrs. If you murder someone inside the walls just more yrs added,even if they are serving" life w/o parole already. The average time served for murder here is 240 months. That's not 8 to 10 years. What does not make sense is the 3/strikes laws. It's reduced the crime rate. Career criminals are where they belong. What's not to like?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 11, 2015 16:57:54 GMT -6
As the offender is committing his third offense, however minor, he has the incentive to round it up to murder for the purposes of removing witnesses. I find it odd that this consideration, which weighs heavily in your balance when it comes to first-time offenses, is one that you suddenly neglect when defending the three strikes rule. Except that the consideration isn't reasonable. The disincentive to commit the third strike is greater than the incentive to go all in and commit murder. If one punishes all first offenses the same as murder, which is what you seem to be suggesting, there is no virtue in moral restraint. Anyone getting a parking ticket might as well kill the person that issued it, and go after his/her family members as well. Just to be clear, then, what's your objection to punishing all first offenses, not the same as murder, but as harshly as California currently punishes the third offense?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 11, 2015 19:31:47 GMT -6
what's your objection to punishing all first offenses, not the same as murder, but as harshly as California currently punishes the third offense? I we could punish murder with an automatic LWOP sentence, as Michigan does, we could perhaps punish lesser crimes with 25-to-life. Murder in the second degree, however, is punished with 15-to-life. It's stupid and unjustifiable, but there it is. How harshly can we punish lesser crimes, if "second-degree" murder, whatever that is, is punished so leniently.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 11, 2015 19:38:37 GMT -6
How harshly can we punish lesser crimes, if "second-degree" murder, whatever that is, is punished so leniently. How can you support life sentences for three (nay - two) instances of pinching an underage buttock when second degree murder, whatever that is, might get you as little as 15?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 12, 2015 8:51:23 GMT -6
How can you support life sentences for three (nay - two) instances of pinching an underage buttock when second degree murder, whatever that is, might get you as little as 15? That's a good question. The only answer is to do away with the bogus "second degree" classification of murder altogether. I have no problem letting recidivists rot in prison for life.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 12, 2015 9:32:36 GMT -6
pinching an underage buttock That would not be a felony in California, under Sec. 288, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Feb 14, 2015 21:53:25 GMT -6
I on the other hand believe if a grown adult will EVER touch a child inappropriately, I don't care if it's what you consider "bad" enough, Let's see how far down the slippery slope you're willing to go. A man who played Santa at the mall is found to have got sexual thrills from having children on his lap. He didn't touch the children any differently from a regular Santa, he just enjoyed the touches more. Execution? What? Did he commit a crime? Who "found" he got sexual thrills from having children on his lap? Was he arrested?
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Feb 14, 2015 21:56:54 GMT -6
How harshly can we punish lesser crimes, if "second-degree" murder, whatever that is, is punished so leniently. How can you support life sentences for three (nay - two) instances of pinching an underage buttock when second degree murder, whatever that is, might get you as little as 15? Why are you defending molestation? I don't get it, you keep acting as though molesting a kid is so much less horrible than murder. In my book it isn't, you are DEFENDING PEDOPHILES, wtf is wrong with you??!!
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 15, 2015 0:22:15 GMT -6
Let's see how far down the slippery slope you're willing to go. A man who played Santa at the mall is found to have got sexual thrills from having children on his lap. He didn't touch the children any differently from a regular Santa, he just enjoyed the touches more. Execution? What? Did he commit a crime? Who "found" he got sexual thrills from having children on his lap? Was he arrested? Let's say he confessed to it. DP?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 15, 2015 0:36:43 GMT -6
How can you support life sentences for three (nay - two) instances of pinching an underage buttock when second degree murder, whatever that is, might get you as little as 15? Why are you defending molestation? I don't get it, you keep acting as though molesting a kid is so much less horrible than murder. In my book it isn't... If you see no difference between tickling children inappropriately vs murdering them and burying them in the woods, you're probably a psychopath.
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Apr 2, 2015 17:43:50 GMT -6
Thats just too much. Pedos are simply good targets for peoples sadism...its usually NOT motivated by the desire to actually help or protect children.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2015 18:23:23 GMT -6
Thats just too much. Pedos are simply good targets for peoples sadism...its usually NOT motivated by the desire to actually help or protect children. What an unusually insightful comment for this board.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2015 18:29:08 GMT -6
How can you support life sentences for three (nay - two) instances of pinching an underage buttock when second degree murder, whatever that is, might get you as little as 15? That's a good question. The only answer is to do away with the bogus "second degree" classification of murder altogether. I have no problem letting recidivists rot in prison for life. How can you support life sentences for three (nay - two) instances of pinching an underage buttock when first degree murder might get you as little as 25?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 2, 2015 18:42:01 GMT -6
Thats just too much. Pedos are simply good targets for peoples sadism...its usually NOT motivated by the desire to actually help or protect children. What an unusually insightful comment for this board. Here where I live they just busted a sex trade going on. Guess, that was not done for the kids to help & protect them. But, those running the sex trade market were good targets, we satisfied our lustful sadism.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2015 19:16:51 GMT -6
What an unusually insightful comment for this board. Here where I live they just busted a sex trade going on. Guess, that was not done for the kids to help & protect them. Not talking about police efforts to catch pedophiles, but on the public appetite to punish them. It seems that pedophiles provide people with an excuse to express their most sadistic desires. No punishment is too cruel.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 2, 2015 19:29:37 GMT -6
Here where I live they just busted a sex trade going on. Guess, that was not done for the kids to help & protect them. Not talking about police efforts to catch pedophiles, but on the public appetite to punish them. It seems that pedophiles provide people with an excuse to express their most sadistic desires. No punishment is too cruel. I do not believe rape should call for the DP. I do know some are just centered on underage children for sex. Main thing we should be protecting are." our" children. So yes, it is extremly normal to fear for our kids.
|
|