supporting "3 strikes and you're out" ?

[Arthur ASCII]

I too am totally against the "three strikes" method of "justice".

The justice system in the UK is far superior to the multitude of different judicial fashions in different States of the USA. Why inroduce a baseball rule into the British Justice system?

[Nogsy]

This is an interesting subject as working within the CJS it is so easy to jump on the bandwagon in a mob mentality and say, Yes, flog 'em and hang 'em" like some demented Sun or Daily Mail reader. But what are the practicalities?

Currently about 1% of the population of the US are in prison. The largest prison population per capita in the world and that includes all the tin-pot dictatorships. We may have the largest prison population in Europe, but we still have a way to go to match the US. And that will include having to build a lot of new prisons.
If we take California as an example, the most famous one, then the impact of the 3 strikes was reported as 'negligible'. But what they did find was that those committing their third offence were more likely to use force, even lethal in some cases, in order to escape. If you are facing 30 to life, what have you got to lose? Remember, that is you in the firing line.

If it was introduced in some form in this country I would suggest the crimes it applied to should be of the more serious nature. This would mean less prison sentences for minor offences. California even amended their law to replace prison with drug treatment for those suitable and found in possession. If you are poor or from a minority group then you are much more likely to go to prison in the States, simply because rich people can afford the best solicitors. So the 3 strikes in the US is such a level playing field as it might suggest.

The idea of putting prisoners to work is also a controversial one. In the States all military headwear is made in prison. Do we make those currently producing it, probably honest people with families, redundant in order to create work for prisoners? That would obviously apply to anything they produced like that.

There never has been a 'golden age' when criminals feared the police and came out of prison fully reformed and so the fact that it doesn't exist now is no surprise. I am not suggesting that the current system is perfect, or that it does not need change, but remember there has been a drop in crime consistently for over 10 years in this country, despite what you might read in the Sun or Daily Mail.

I am not disputing the need for more robust sentencing in certain cases. I just wanted to inject some proper information into the debate rather than just join in the bandwagon jumping.

[falkor]

cheers Nogsy

< this whole issue of THREE STRIKES went onto 3 separate forums simultaneously, ours PRISON OFFR.RG.UK and NATN TRAFFIC
you can VIEW an alternative thread or VOTE on an official government petition >
THREE STRIKES LAW?

if you wish to add your signature to this then hit the VOTE link below V O T E

| | | | | |

if you would like to VIEW an alternate thread on this whole issue then hit the V I E W link below V I E W

There are way too many repeat offenders on the loose in the UK and the courts are letting them loose, despite serial offending on a colossal scale, enough is enough, time for THREE STRIKES!

[Gualsa]

I am not in favour. As much as I would like to see tougher sentencing I don't fancy paying much more in tax to fund this. I think prisoners should have less rights. No legal aid for starters, more solitary confinements, less visiting hours, only cardio equipment in the gyms, no dessert and more than anything: higher ratio of officers to inmates to prevent rioting.

If the time inside is harder it would be just as efficient as a longer stay with more perks. (IMHO)

Only dangerous prisoners should receive long or indefinite sentences. The use of tagging orders should be increased. Why keep people locked up in a prison when they could be "locked up" at home? That would be much cheaper and if they re-offend they should get a custodial.

[Arthur ASCII]

What sort of society denies legal aid to the poor?

[falkor]

fair point

but what I am concerned about is offenders who rack up conviction, after conviction, after conviction

a whopping 50% of prisoners released from jail go on to commit a new crime within a year of that release

if we "allow" those who have more than 3 convictions for serious offences, to AGAIN be released from prison, then "somebody" "somewhere" is going to be their victim, maybe you!

[Arthur ASCII]

I'm afraid that an abirary law that gives judges no room for maneuvre is not for me.

I urge you to read the impact document on the CaliforniaLegislative Analyst's Office web site that reflects on a decade of "three strikes".

The most important point for me is that the application of the law varies considerably by county:

Based on discussions with representatives of the courts and district attorneys offices, we conclude that local county justice systems have developed various strategies for handling their Three Strikes caseloads, based on different policy priorities and fiscal constraints. Thus, the manner in which the law is implemented at the local level by prosecutors and judges varies across counties. In some counties, for example, prosecutors seek Three Strikes enhancements only in certain cases, such as for certain types of crimes that are particular problems in their county or where the current offense is serious or violent. In other counties, prosecutors seek Three Strikes enhancements in most eligible cases. Similarly, judges vary in how often they dismiss prior strikes, based on discretion afforded to them under the Romero decision. In addition, variation in the application of Three Strikes not only exists across counties, but can also occur within counties. In particular, prosecution practices change over time as counties experience turnover of district attorneys and judges and as they develop new methods for handling Three Strikes cases.

Our legal system would not (rightly in my view) tolerate such wide disparities of treatment.

It's a blunt weapon, loved by the masses who just want to see someone suffer, but a law that often dishes out riduiculous and shameful punishment that doesn't fit the crime.

Source

[falkor]

if we do not have the backbone for three strikes then we deserve what we've got now

and what we've got now is a revolving door policy of repeat offenders doing time for the crimes they're caught for

and the crimes they're not caught for probably account for the vast majority of their criminal career so they are laughing all the way to the bank

the public suffer their continued criminal activity because we would much rather be afraid of an arbitary law

there are wide disparities of treatment across the UK now and there always will be

do you really think that rehabilitation of career criminals is going to magically "appear" with this government or the next? really? no chance, so simple choice, let these career criminals mount up massive convictions going in and out of prison for the crimes they get caught for OR actually get something done about these "people"

I agree with it. I did a sentence plan on a prisoner in my previous employment. He had OVER 175 previous convictions. When I ask what he did for a living, his reply was an unemployed burglar. He should have been life'd off.

we have actually got villains who have been in and out of prison, then convicted AGAIN and then given community sentences, nonsense, we have no chance and no clue

[Arthur ASCII]

IMHO the CPS the judiciary and the Government all share some responsibility for the current situation. Bringing in a "three strikes" law wouldn't make a scrap of difference - it would be circumvented in the same way that it often is State-side and would only be a sticking plaster to cover bad legislation, timid and lax legal process and stupid and ill-considered sentencing.

[Nogsy]

but what I am concerned about is offenders who rack up conviction, after conviction, after conviction

a whopping 50% of prisoners released from jail go on to commit a new crime within a year of that release

Sorry Falkor but are you not admitting with this statement that prison actually does not work? And then you propose the solution to that problem should be more prison.

If you really want to stop that revolving door then maybe we should be thinking more outside the box. If a drug adict steals to feed their habit, gets arrested and imprisoned, maintains their habit in prison only to return to the street and start the cycle all over again. Locking people up does not help us in the longer run as there is always a constant stream of adicted offenders. But if you put in a drug intervention somewhere in that cycle then you may at least release some of those people from the cycle. It won't work for everyone, but for those it does, at least it helps us and potential victims more in the longer term.

The real question here is whether we lock people up with a view to reforming them into valuable, productive members of society, or whether we lock them up purely for revenge. From much of the chat on here I would suggest revenge is the primary motive of many.

[Acorn]

I remember learning in college that one of the unintended effects of the "three strikes/felony" law in California was an increase in the murder of police officers due to offenders attempting to evade the life-long lock up.

[falkor]

so let's be really soft on criminals and give them really low sentences so that they won't murder police officers

yeah I get it - make sure everyone knows that that there really isn't any deterrent and we'll have no problems

yeah, makes sense!!

The real question here is whether we lock people up with a view to reforming them into valuable, productive members of society

Nogsy have you ever considered that quite a large proportion of the career criminals in this country have no intention of being reformed into valuable, productive members of society?

they laugh at all this talk of reforming them, rehabilitating them and it's joe public who yet again pays the price