Talk:Three-strikes law

Criticism section, “perverse incentive”

I've removed the final phrase of this section, "Therefore the so called 'perverse incentive' has never been proved to exist.", because this is a POV statement. 1. Because variation in criminal motives is huge, if not endless, you can not make this statement, especially "never been proved to exist" (sic). The 3-strikes law might scare off some, or it might let others with already 2 strikes on their record, adopt a devil may care attitude. One cannot say with certainty which way this will go. The argument offered in the paragraph is weak, since before committing a crime like burglary or hold-ups, SOME criminals DO make up their mind on what to do when things go wrong. Without a 3 strike law, these will decide not to shoot or kill because they reason that it's better to get caught and receive a lighter sentence, than it's to kill the cop and take a chance on getting a life sentence.

in short, everybody will react differently

2. Since no large scale, statiscally significant research has been done into precisely this question we can not make the absolute statement that 'perverse incentive' doesn't exist. 3. The existence of sayings like "Might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb" and "Devil may care" attitude indicates that such reasonings are well-known, throughout society. During the preparation for a crime, these consideration might very well enter the thought process of a criminal, even if at the time of the actual shooting, his/her reasoning capabilities might be diminished.

Aside from all this, the actual refutation in that paragraph seems weak. It comes down to: "Criminals are crazy, who knows what they'll do?" The crazy argument in assigning motive in your foes is most of the time wrong since it plain lazy. It absolves the necessity of doing some hard thinking. (Most notably so in the 9/11 case). Besides, if most criminals were crazy, no amount of 'strikes' law would stop them. In that case, it would be best to drop the 3 strikes law to prevent still reasoning criminals from shooting the arresting cops/surprised home-owners. We cannot say with certainty how much 'still reasoning criminals' exists, but it seems highly unlikely that ALL criminals are stupid and crazy. So, if all crime is committed on impulse, then why a 3 strike law? Why not a 2 strike or 5 strike law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Tjoe-Nij (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

three strikes bad

why do u think the three strikes are bad?

First, you should sign your comments. Second, whether an author thinks the policy is "bad" or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles must conform to a neutral point of view policy. Juansmith 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. See my entry in the John Gibson discussion. For example, I think the three strikes law is typical conservative idiocy, yet still respect that there are others who don't feel that way. Wikipedia should(somehow) accuratly reflect both these points of views. 64.160.121.83 08:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Strange results" --> "Controversial results"

I don't believe the section title "Strange results" and the section therein conform to the NPOV policy. Juansmith 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue was controversial enough that the U.S. Supreme Court was willing to grant cert, so it should definitely be mentioned. The reason it was controversial at the international level was that no other industrialized First World country sentences convicts to such long sentences for commensurate crimes. I think the quotation of O'Connor's reasoning makes it neutral enough. What exactly do you find nonneutral about it? --Coolcaesar 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant that it's controversial, and should be included, however "strange" is a borderline term which may violate NPOV. In addition, some aspects of how the section is written seem to pass judgment on the law. Some words are italicized for emphasis, which would seem to indicate the tone and perception of the author as he wrote about each idea. Also, it seems inappropriate to include what is clearly critical language in a section called "History", especially when there is a "Criticism" section lower in the article. I could see the "strange results" section being merged with "Criticism", but it would have to be altered somewhat to conform to NPOV. Juansmith 06:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the section title was changed from "strange results" to "controversial results". It's a good start, to be sure, but that section is still in need of a rewrite to conform the NPOV and quality standards. Juansmith 07:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I reworded a lot of the section and deleted what I felt to be unneccesary information (I felt there was far too much exposition on some of the laws or sentences mentioned) or POV. I think it fits, now. SeriousLee

The new wording of the section is acceptable. Good job, SeriousLee. Under the banner of "controversial results", it conveys the same message without taking a side on the issue. There is just one issue: "Harsh" criticism may be questionable under NPOV, but I think it can stay unchanged, as long as there is a source attributed for the claim. Does anyone have one? Juansmith 18:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The one person mentioned in this section with an actual article was removed, so I have restored it. I feel the information lends credence to the headline.--Metron4 19:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just came across this article for the first time. That section doesn't seem NPOV to me. IMO, the sign could be removed. However, that particular section could use to be cleaned up a bit, since it's not particularly well written atm. 213.112.22.70 01:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anytime The Supreme Court produces a 5-4 Decision, the results are controversial, and we see a "political" division in the sitting court. Unfortunately, this decision by the Supreme Court protected the status quo of shoplifting in both the Criminal Law and the Civil Law where 49 or 50 states have passed Civil Recovery Laws that are a subsidy for the corporate retailers of the nation. This decision would have been more controversial if Winona Ryder had not been prosecuted and sentenced for FELONY larcenies in the Los Angeles Superior Court in December of 2002, just prior to the reversal of the 9th Circuit by The Supreme Court in early 2003. Additionally, The Supreme Court agreed to hear the California Appeal to the 9th Circuit Ruling a month after the DOD implemented policy to demand $200 from active duty military personnel for their offense of shoplifting or the offense of a sponsored dependent in the government retail stores while referring active duty personnel or their sponsored dependent to the Federal Magistrate Courts to defend against a charge of larceny shoplifting. CJKC Jan 25 2008

two time loser

This term would make more sense if three time loser' were used somewhere in the article for contextRJFJR 23:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)yeah

No, it already makes sense as it stands. The person is called a two-time loser because of the ubiquitous joke that a criminal is just someone who had a bad day (in the sense that when incriminating contraband is found on them, they always say "it's not mine" even when it really is theirs). So someone who had two bad days must be a loser (in the dual senses of being really unlucky or just really pathetic), because now they are one more bad day from going to prison for 25 years to life.

Actually, it's closer to life, considering that the California Supreme Court in January 2005 just gave the parole board carte blanche. The parole board can deny parole for any reason including the nature of the original crime and the defendant's failure to take responsibility for his actions and stop claiming he's innocent. Which means that a lot of defendants on indeterminate sentences just found their sentences turned into de facto life sentences.--Coolcaesar 08:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added some additional comments on the strange results that result by applying one size fits all sentencing schemes. The source is 1170.12 Cal.P.C.--Veniceslug1 03:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

5/23/05

I edited the following lines, which originally read as follows:

"Additional unfairness can result under some statutory schemes where two prior convictions can result from a single act."

That word "unfairness" is a biased term in what should be an objective article. Many people would not see this as being at all unfair.

"Therefore, a sentence of 25 years to life will actually be a life sentence in most cases, because the parole board is unlikely to grant parole for the vast majority of eligible prisoners."

This is laughably inaccurate. State parole boards are putting prisoners of all types back on the streets at record paces right now. In many states the parole board is a veritable revolving door whose mission is to cut costs in the correctional system instead of guaranteeing public safety. There is no sound basis at all for the proposition that "the parole board is unlikely to grant parole for the vast majority of eligible prisoners." In fact, the reverse is true!

Let me get you a napkin, you seem to be spitting up rhetoric. 64.160.121.83 08:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As the US is locking people away at a higher rate than ever - unless everybody is jailed for life, each year you will get more and more people released from prison. Parole board releases will logically go up when there are more prisoners to be released. In addition filling up prisons with 3 time losers is a very good way of meaning first time (possibly violent) felons will have to be released early simply to make room.

What kind of crazy hillbilly state do you live in? It's obviously not California; our parole board is notorious for its stubborn refusal to grant parole to all but the most saintly and reformed of prisoners. The governor has the power to fire and replace parole board members at any time, so they are understandably reluctant to release anyone unless they are confident that the chance of recidivism is zero.

That's why our prisons are notoriously overcrowded and a federal district judge just took over the broken prison healthcare system last year. We DO NOT release people to make room for the three-time losers like Andrade and Ewing. Instead, we just keep cramming more and more convicts into the Department of Corrections system, in every possible way imaginable (even old prison gyms have been converted into giant holding pens for less dangerous inmates).

Also, I should point out that in many states and the federal system, parole has been abolished altogether. Either you get out or you don't. There is no discretion. --Coolcaesar 06:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Lack of consistency in "violent or serious"

I think the article is not consistent throughout the text. I read in the middle that felonies must be considered "violent" or "serious". I am pretty sure how to gauge the violence of a crime, however, I have a hard time conceiving of a felony not deemed "serious"

Now, I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with the actual text of the law, but the contradiction comes in the next section where previous convictions of shoplifting or possession of drugs can be used against you (when is that considered serious or not?)

The contradiction arises from how California has "wobbler" crimes where the sole reason for the elevation of a crime from a misdemeanor to a felony is the fact that the suspect has already been previously convicted at least one or more times of that crime as a misdemeanor. That is, if the crime had been committed as a first-time crime, it would have been charged as a misdemeanor. For example, if Leandro Andrade had never been convicted of anything in his life before he stole Disney videotapes on two occasions from a K-Mart, he would have probably been convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to a few weeks in jail or even probation. It is his prior criminal record which was the basis for treating his petty theft of videotapes as a felony (even though the actual harm on this particular occasion was rather small). In contrast, speaking hypothetically, if he had robbed a bank, nonviolently, of a million dollars, most people would agree that the amount and target would make such a robbery a serious felony. --Coolcaesar 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The California Three Strikes Law refers in its terms to previously existing laws that enhanced sentences based on prior convictions. One of these law enhanced convictions for what it defined as "violent felonies" the other for "serious felonies". It is the law under which one is convicted, and the actual seriousness or violence in the acts, that determines if it meets the laws terms. Veniceslug1 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger with Mandatory Sentencing

Discussion moved to Talk:Mandatory sentencing#Merger proposal.

California law

Btw Veniceslug1, why does the California law constitute a three strikes law if judicial discretion is retained? If the law is not mandatory in nature, its either not a three strikes law or the scope of the definition needs to be expanded to explain this aspect (aka "when a mandatory sentencing law is not mandatory"). 203.198.237.30 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The scope of the definition needs to be expanded - Texas also had/has (I'm unsure of its current status) a "recidivist statute" aka "Three-strikes law" which I don't believe was mandatory (see my comment at Talk:Mandatory sentencing#Merger proposal for more information).

"Perverse incentive"

The commentary on this aspect of criticism is either not well stated, or the criticism itself is a logical fallacy. Is it attempting to say that a 2 strike perp who has actually committed 3 or more felonies may decide that it is in his best interests to commit murder in relation to an unconvicted felony? It also currently contains the unstated assumption that a 2 strike perp is always captured a 3rd time (so why commit the 3rd at all, regardless of its nature?). The section needs to be clarified or deleted. 203.198.237.30 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited the section in question and I addressed what you brought up. It is indeed a logical fallacy, and rather than delete the section I merely added a sentence to illustrate this to the reader. Looking back on it, though, I think it may break NPOV. 66.41.67.211 12:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited it even further, since I hard problems understanding it on my first reading. I think it's better now, but feel free to improve on it further. I also suspect I may have made it just slightly NPOV, but not more so than I can live with. 213.112.22.70 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I further clarified the perverse incentives argument. The argument deals with homicides that would tend to reduce the risk of being apprehended and sentenced under these laws, such as killing a witness or police officers during an escape attempt. 67.161.75.43 10:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Three Srikes law is crap"

My father is in Folsom State prison because of the three strikes law. They pulled up an offence from seven years ago and counted it as a strike and because he already had two, he's in prison for eight years. He wont get out until i'm 21 and i'm 15 right now. I think it's nothing but stupid crap! You wanna know what the offence was? Threatening people. He didn't even act. Now i'[m not saying it's right, and he should definately serve time for that but the fact is HE DID! He served six months in a county jail for the crime and it shouldn't have been counted. The three strikes law is the stupidest crap i've ever heard and I would like everyone to know that.

Too bad. The point of the three strikes law is to discourage people from acting in a threatening or violent manner. The mere threat of violence is against public policy because such action tends to provoke violent behavior in others. If your father is so stupid as to misbehave even with two strikes on his record, he has demonstrated that he deserves long-term incarceration to ensure the safety of his fellow citizens. A smart person would have been on his best behavior after his first felony conviction and would have sought to prove that he was rehabilitated as quickly as possible in order to get the conviction expunged or sealed. --Coolcaesar 18:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice that we should feel sorry for the criminal here. What about all his victims? I just hope he doesn't commit more crimes when he's released in 6 years.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.45.188 (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Sometimes a punishment is unjust. In that case, it is societies crime, not the criminals. 68.222.85.147 03:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Punishment for any crime should be isolated to that crime alone. To add punishment to a second crime for the fact of the first crime is really a double punishment of the first crime.

You commit Crime A, then serve time for Crime A. You commit similar crime B, you should serve time only for Crime B, and not for Crime B, plus additional crime because of the fact of Crime A.

Three strikes law is very bad law and probably un-Constitutional. We owe it to ourselves, as citizens, to exercise jury nullification any time we sit as jury members on a trial involving the possibility of a Three Strikes statute being used.

If society truly wants to reduce recidivism, the best path is to treat each infraction of the law as its own isolated incident, implement the punishment only for that distinct breaking of the law, then let the person start life fresh again afterwards. When we stamp permanent labels on people and punish them forever for crimes that they served time for long ago, we are really not allowing for an atmosphere for rehabilitation and recidivism.

This concept seems to be accurate but there are many examples to disprove it. For example, two convicted burglars out on parole (Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes) were accused of killing three family members during a home invasion, sexual assault, and arson in Cheshire, Connecticut. Each has committed more than 10 burglaries. According to the principle you stated, they should be allowed to continue to commit the same crime over and over again until one day they get out of control. They did just that. This example can be multiplied at least ten thousand times in California. People need protection from career criminals. Jimbaron 11:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The constitutionality of the law has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, which is made up nine really smart people who got straight A's in high school, college, and law school, and served on law review, and clerked with the Supreme Court, and then had outstanding careers as litigators or law professors before being nominated to the bench.

If you don't like the law, you have the legal right to speak out against it. But the vast majority of the American people support three-strikes laws because they recognize that some people are so dangerous as to warrant long-term incarceration for the safety of society. One time could be an accident; two times might be just very bad luck; but three times is enough. A person has to be either very stupid, unlucky, or incorrigible to be convicted of a serious crime three times. It is very unlikely that these laws will be legislated out of existence (or judicially overturned) in the foreseeable future.

Three-strikes is kind of like the duty of reasonable care in negligence in tort law. To paraphrase law professor Roger Schechter: We impose this duty upon all people including those who will never be able to conform their conduct to it, which makes it an extremely harsh rule. But we do it anyway because of our concern for our own safety and our own right to not be harmed by negligent conduct. --Coolcaesar 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Supreme Court people are not very smart... Now I wish Earl Warren was still around. There was someone with his head on straight. Still, 4 of them (one short of a majority) did vote against in the case. Ummonk 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself to have just as much smarts and sense as those "nine really smart people" you mention. I do not at all buy the elitist argument presented above, implying that no one but a Supreme Court judge can fathom the rationale and importance of legislation. The Constitution was written for the common man, and its supreme power was vested in the people, not the government.

So, you want to lock someone up for stealing a candy bar? Fine, but don't expect me to deliver a guilty verdict from a jury box. In fact, if such a person uses deadly force to avoid incarceration for the third strike, I'll have to say you brought it upon yourselves, and again, I would not deliver a guilty verdict from the jury box. Evil, oppressive laws do not deserve support.

Please tell me you have said these words in haste. If not, I implore you to re-evaluate your position on freeing murderers and violent thugs onto the streets just to prove a point. It may be your loved-one gunned down for their Hercheys. --Jquarry 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Furthermore, the law is neither evil nor oppressive. It puts away only those people who are so stupid as to be unable to conform their conduct to the law despite two earlier strikes. It protects the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, who go to college, work hard, earn a decent living, and therefore never find themselves in such desperate straits that they feel the need to steal golf clubs, videotapes, cookies, or pizza.

Also, I almost forgot to mention that the jury is usually not informed whether they are hearing a three-strikes case or not. Several California Court of Appeal panels have upheld the right of the judge to instruct counsel for both parties to not mention to the jury that they are litigating a three-strikes case, as well as the right of the judge to refuse to tell the jury when they specifically ask. That's how the judiciary has dealt with people like you who try to engage in such silly jury nullification. --Coolcaesar 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A few things that none of these critiques is addressing is the fact that California's law treats every individual count, rather than individual cases, as strikes; that it goes back into criminal histories no matter how far back (including juvenile records) from all 50 states and the federal system; and that it bumps wobblers up to felonies. This means that people convicted of 2 "strike" offenses after a plea bargain in a juvenile case can and have been, 20, or 30, or 40 years later, be sent away for life for an otherwise minor offense (stealing a piece of pizza, possession of a controlled substance (before Proposition 36), etc.)

One side effect of the "flaw" of Three Strikes Law you described here is that many gangsters moved out of California to avoid exceeding their foul count, so to speak. Many career criminals have left. For example, the movement of LA gangster to other major cities could be the result of this "flaw." I guess it is good for a state that adopted Three Strikes Law such as California, but bad for other states. Jimbaron 11:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Another matter is the overcrowded prison system. While "lock 'em all up and throw away the key" may sound rewarding, right now, California's state prison system is over 200% of its design capacity. The healthcare system is under federal court management and Schwarzenegger is currently sending any prisoners he can find that are eligible out of state. They're going to build more prisons, they have to, which will probably be filled up again with more 3rd strikers. But building enough prisons just for todays population will take probably 10 years, by which time we'll have even more 3rd strikers to send away. That, and the fact that the 3rd strikers, because of their term lengths, go to Level IV yards (maximum security), decreasing the available space for truly dangerous and difficult inmates (they're over capacity in the "supermax" SHU units too).

This statement assumes that the Three Strikes Law is the reason for the overcrowding, but the 10 year report indicates that the crimes have been reduced by 2 millions in 10 ten years after the law is in effect. I don't know how accurate this report is. But there is no report that has data to contradict this report so far. Jimbaron 11:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. The general downward trend in crime is a national phenomena that has effected all states, even the ones without three strikes laws. My real question is why more hasn't been done. Most European states have average sentences roughly six times less than American ones, and there are less crimes there. Maybe we're missing the big picture? 68.222.85.147 03:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In case I have to spell it out, if you pack prisons with 2 or 3 or 4 times as many people as they were designed to handle (Corcoran's maximum-security Level IV Gen-Pop yards are 466% full right now!), the results aren't pretty for law and order or any other purpose. The system is going to start collapsing under its own weight. The prisons get dangerous and unhealthy, both to their prisoners and to their staff. There isn't enough space or resources for the prisoners and the COs can't keep their eyes on everybody. You get disease outbreaks, fights, stabbings, riots, and on and on and on. Eventually, the courts will start shutting prisons down or closing them off to new commitments on 8th Amendment grounds. If they don't, well, you see what's going on in California now, with prisons and jails going on lockdown month in and out. The prisoners who will be released won't be in any sense rehabilitated (again, California's recidivism rate, counting parole violations, is in the 70% range) and are likely to be even worse than when they went in after spending years in overcrowded, filthy, violent jungles. Eventually, if you have prisons crammed with inmates in every corner, you won't be able lock them down effectively anymore and that's when we're going to start losing yards ala Attica. --Tommythegun 11:47 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that even if fewer people are convicted because of the law, since the people who are convicted spend more time, the prisons become far more crowded. Ummonk 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Naturally. Which means supernumerary inmates should simply be put to death. What is the point of permanently locking 3rd strikers anyway? The whole point is that, by commiting a third strike, they have proved their unrecoverability as citizens; why keep them around? They certainly don't fit in the foremost purpose of the prison system: Reformation. Therefore, there is no moral or social imperative whatsoever to sustain their already amputated existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.77.54 (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

I removed the POV Section tag. After reading the article and looking at the discussion above, it appears that the POV concerns had been sufficiently addressed to remove the tag. As an aside, I think the "Controversial Results" section could and should be merged with the Criticisms section.Qball6 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag is warranted, the article is filled with unsourced statements, and anecdotal evidence all criticizing the law. This article needs to be cleaned up, better sourced and the POV issue must be fixed. --ozoneliar 5 September 2006

== I concur with you on the POV issue ==

I concur. The whole double jeopardy argument against three strikes is so nonsensical that it should not be mentioned. Any five-year-old with a basic understanding of double jeopardy can see why it does not apply to the three strikes situation. --Coolcaesar 05:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You know five-year-old's with a basic understanding of double jeopardy? Wow

– — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Any of your 5 year olds heard of Bill’s of Attainder?  Or the ex Post Facto Clause?
"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils.  They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community."  James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

You think maybe that is why some judges where so upset after the passage of the first Three Strike Laws? Upset by the removal of judicial discretion of their judgeship and ability to adjudicate? Just simply follow the mandate of the legislatures interference in the judicial realm?

But then again, your five year olds, after all, are to young to know of republican form, but rather dwell in the democracy form, where the Constitution of the United States of America has been chipped away for the greater good of the masses, rather than the preservation of liberty of the individual.

Fire and rain 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Fire and rain March 02, 2007

Let me put it this way: Young idealistic people with no kids, who will probably leave California anyway, should not have a say in this. Guys like me, with a family who has lived in California 49 years, are different. I am more than willing to pay higher taxes to keep thugs, rapists, murderers and subhuman monsters in general off the streets of California. The three strikes law has been a great benefit.

California also has the right to run its own affairs. I do not give a damn what people in other States or countries think of our three strikes law. Personally, I think most inmates in this State should be locked up till they are very old, then thrown out to drown in the gutter during the next El Nino.

Got it? (Mtloweman 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)) Mtloweman

Unfortunately, some dead white guys in Philadelphia 200 years ago didn't agree with you, and they put the 8th Amendment in the Constitution. Whether or not you are willing to pay the higher taxes necessary to house 170,000 people in accord with that requirement, the people of the State of California, as expressed through their legislators and the referendum, have not been. As a result, federal judges are poised right now to take over the California prison system and possibly impose a mandatory population cap on the system, which would let thousands of those "subhuman monsters" out. The public wants to lock up people hand over fist but doesn't want to pay for them. No politician in Sacramento is willing to give their opponents grist for scary election-year TV commercials about letting criminals out or raising taxes. So, here come the judges. 67.161.75.43 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that was what they said about slavery. The South has the right to run its own affairs. It doesn't give a damn what people in other states or countries say. Just because you want something doesn't mean you can trample on the rights of "sub human monsters" (never mind "all men are created equal"). These guys are people who have never been given a chance in life.

Another thing is, we young idealists do not plan on leaving California...Ummonk 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

POV problems again

The article was stable for a long time and now in the past week it looks like the three strikes partisans are going at each other again. So now the article has some really weird POV slants whiplashing left and right. At this point I think we need to move to the "CITE EVERYTHING" approach which brought the edit wars in Lawyer under control. If the article doesn't get fixed soon, I'm going to start throwing out weasel words and unsupported original research left and right until we have a neutral, stable article again. --Coolcaesar 21:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this is my first time coming to this article and it reads very POV. The benefits in California section reads like an apologist wrote it. I think a POV tag is warranted. JakiChan 03:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Along with that I wonder if Wikipedia:Verifiability would preclude the use of http://www.threestrikes.org/ (specifically the report http://www.threestrikes.org/TenYearReport04.pdf) as a valid citation as it is a self-published site. This is cited in the section "Benefits of "3 Strikes" in California" in the second paragraph which starts "Another common criticism" (oddly enough in the benefits section). --PurpleFlux 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The data in the 10 year report is accurate or not is the key point in this debate. So far there is no report that has data to contradict the 10 year report. The flaw of counting minor offenses should be corrected in the Three Strikes Law. But if the 10 year report holds up, then the judgment could be on the Three Strike side. Jimbaron 11:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is rabidly pro-three strikes and wildly POV. Every argument in the criticism section is followed by a very authoratative "The refutation to this argument is..." Three strikes may be a stunning success, I have no idea, but right now this article has as much rhetorical credibility as your average Holocaust denier. --Kajerm 02:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

An idea needs to be supported by theoretical consistency and factual data. Since a theory may sound like a rhetoric to the people who stand on the other side, we must resort to the factual data. The 10 year report is the major factual data for the "Three Strikes" proponents. If the report is inaccurate in numbers, it should be easy to disprove them since they are publicly accessible information. Jimbaron 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Why on God's green earth don't they just move?

I never understood why people who have two strikes against them don't move at least to another state. It seems like a fairly obvious precaution, and what easier time to "move" than after finishing a prison sentence? Also, is there a provision in the law where different states with three-strike laws count each other's crimes, or does a person start fresh in every state? 70.15.116.59 02:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about other states, but Section 667.12 of the California Penal Code already covers that possibility because it applies to "any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includes all of the elements of any serious felony." The clause about "in another jurisdiction" essentially means any other sovereign jurisdiction, which would include the federal government, other U.S. states, and other countries. The Legislature may be crazy, but it's not stupid!

Also, more and more old court records are being computerized, if not by the courts themselves, then by private entrepreneurs. So it's getting easier for prosecutors to dig up old convictions from around the country to use against defendants in three-strikes cases. You can run but you can't hide from LexisNexis. --Coolcaesar 05:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

---

• There's no reason that I can see to limit the coverage of this article only to "three strikes" habitual offender laws. It seems arbitrary. This is an inherently US-centric concept as well. <eleland/talkedits> 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the move. There is enough information and controversy about three strikes laws, as a separate legal concept unto themselves, to justify an article. It is US-centric because, to my knowledge, other nations do not use the three strikes model. That being said, I think a new broader article on habitual offender laws is an excellent idea.--Kubigula (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I agree the article is Americentric, but only because it is a new concept (originating in 1993) that has only taken root in America. However, it is, in my opinion, distinct from other habitual offender laws, even in the Unites States. To my understanding, there have been laws that allowed the possibility of imposition of life sentences, however, with the three strikes law, the sentence comes into force as mandatory upon the third eligabile conviction. Also, the fact that in some juridictions it would mandate a life sentence for crimes that would only carry a maximum of a few years otherwise, a tenfold or more increase in severity, makes it uniquely controversial. Thus as a concpet I feel three strikes distinct from habitual offender laws in general, and notable for it's effect on the law and the public debate in the United States. Homersmyid 11:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Benefits Section

First off, there is some confussion about three strikes in Califronia. Only about 8 thousand people are serving sentences of twenty five to life for commiting a thrid strike. The "three strikes law" is the name for a bill in Claifrornia that also calls for increased prison time, but not life, for second offenses. So while about 100 thousand people have been affected by the provisions of the bill, the vast majority have been for 2nd offenses, which is outside the scope of this article. Source: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/cj_primer/cj_primer_013107.aspx

Secondly, the benefits section needs serious work. The main argument about a drop from 8 million to 6 million is bad statistics at best. The three strikes law only applies to people with 2 or more previous convivtions, so unless that 25% drop came only from that particular group, and only because they were locked up or feared a third strike, and not due to any other cause, then it's bunk. It's like saying in 1993 Bill Clinton became president, and x fewer murders happened while he was president then in the previous 8 years, thus Bill Clinton saved x number of peoples' lives.

Otherwise, the "benefits" are just responses to criticism, no actual benefit is given. There are a few benefits I can imagine. 1) A study estimated that people facing a third strike are less likely to commit a crime. http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/ThreeStrikes.pdf 2) There must be a rough estimate of reactivation rate, thus there must be an estimate of how many crimes have been prevented by lockng those people up 3) While there are cases of seemingly excessive efforcement, there are also cases of multiple murders, multiple rapists, and others being locked up under the law. Homersmyid 12:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with you the benefits section is problematic. The benefits section is a biased, shows strong POV, and also seems to constitute original research. That is, it attempts to synthesize statistics to support very controversial conclusions in the kind of way which is normally done in original research. That kind of synthesis is inappropriate for Wikipedia unless it can be supported by citations to verifiable, reliable sources (e.g., peer-reviewed criminology journals). The whole section fails to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:V, and a number of other policies. --Coolcaesar 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Whenever I look at that chart in the "benefits" section, I think, "Wow, Three Strikes, a law so effective that crime started going down months before it was even passed." The entire point is ridiculous - crime all around the US started going down about that time. 74.251.3.34 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed purge of original research, unverifiable garbage, and weasel words

There is a lot of original research, nonneutral statements, unverifiable garbage, weasel words, etc. that has been inserted into this article over the past six months by partisans on either side of the three strikes debate, in violation of all Wikipedia core policies (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability). I am proposing to strip out all the unsourced garbage on both sides and reduce this article back to a neutral summary of the statutes and cases, without getting into the messy debate about whether three strikes is good or bad.

I am going to be purging this article in three or four weeks when I have the time around Christmas. So if you want a controversial statement to stay, please add a citation to a reliable published source like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, where there is a neutral set of eyeballs (called an editor) who filters out errors before text gets published in hard copy. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, please mark it as needing a citation and wait a while to give us a chance to add citations before removing those sections. Ummonk 00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Four strikes?

What happens if somebody committed three felonies before the enactment of the three strikes law? Is he subject to the three strikes law when he commits another felony? --91.141.109.120 (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is the case. The previous strikes are his first two strikes (there is an unecessary strike) and he gets another strike. Ummonk (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)