[Imal]

Transferred to a dedicated thread on topical grounds.

[Support Free Republic]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Thanks Registered

[wideawake]

Boiled down to its essence, the argument is this: The existence of three-strikes laws creates an incentive for felons to kill officers who try to arrest them or any potential witnesses to their crimes.

Yes, the felons themselves make a conscious decision to kill or not kill.

But we all know how smart it is to leave decisions to felons.

These laws were passed by legislatures because judges were too lenient in their sentencing - in other words, judges were allowed to pass sentence without having to experience the real world impact of their decisions - increased crime, etc.

So the law incentivizes felons to behave worse, and it does not incentivize judges to behave better.

A better law might be one that mandates dismissing judges whose sentencing leads to recidivism and to jail time for judges who are negligent regarding the safety concerns of the communities they supposedly serve.

[mrsmith]

It's based on a false analogy.
It doesn't matter to the criminal whether the "hard time" comes from a judge or a statute.
His response will be the same either way because it is to the "hard time" and not to the method of imposing it.

The unacknowledged assumption behind this claim is that three strikes laws unfairly impose "hard time" for offenses they shouldn't.

[Bryan24]

I've always believed criminals caused crime.

[apillar]

I think all things considered three strikes law's have done more good than bad.

However, I can see the point this article makes.

If I am a criminal and am on my third strike, I commit a felony (say armed robbery), I am cornered by the police, my options are:

A) Surender and spend the rest of my life in jail.

B) Shoot at the cops hopeing to take one or two out to gain
a "rep" while I spend the rest of my life in jail (cop killers being looked upon as "superstars" by their fellow prisoners."

C) Shoot at the cops in hope of B, but settling for going out in a blaze of glory (SBP - suicide by police)

[eno_]

I find this debate very interesting. I am anti War on Drugs, but pro three strikes. It seems to me that, while imprefect, three strikes laws take repeat offenders out of circulation while making the odds of three unjust convictions very low.

The statistics on reporting and solution rates for property crime mean that, on average, a three strikes case is actually something like a 27th or 113th strike. Police effectiveness for property crime is piss-poor: Single digit and low double digit solution rates. No DNA sampling at crime scenes, etc. When was the last time you heard of a burglary being solved in your town?

Will there be some terribly unlucky bastards? Sure. And it is a pity we have a system that screws them. But it also screws everyone with low solution rates, low conviction rates, short sentences, etc. Until we get police that can reliably solve burglaries and muggings, three strikes is the best we can do.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Reasons the three strikes law helps:

1. Less crime will be committed, some of which would have led killings, by those with 2 strikes.

2. No crimes will be committed by those in jail because of the law.

Reason why the law makes thinks worse

3. The incentive to kill in order to get away may be higher in some specific situations.


Personally, I believe 1 and 2 outweigh 3 and there is a net positive effect. Those arguing for 3 need to do more than assert it they need to say why it is so incredibly powerful an incentive that it overcomes 1 and 2.

Point 3 is weak because the probability of being ultimately convicted may be greater if they kill because much more police resources will be devoted to them than if it was a petty crime, and because there are now two crimes police can try to prove rather than one. The probability of being ultimately convicted is as or more important than the sentance.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Henry Hazlitt the economist talked about the importance of looking at both what is seen and what is unseen. Conventional wisdom often ignores the unseen and comes to the wrong conclusion. The “3 strikes creates incentives to kill” argument is part of the unseen. However, I think some people get caught up in the cuteness of the argument and forget the incentives conventional wisdom acknowledges are still there. I think this is a case of conventional wisdom being right and the cute counterargument being logically valid but insignificant.