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.
Not necessarily. Here in Washington, where it started, back in '94, it was by initiative sold on the basis of "90% of the crimes are committed by 10% of the criminals; this will cut crime way down."
Something didn't seem right about this; I discovered the feds had conducted recidivism studies, and the results of those studies did not support the assertion. And in fact, having 3 strikes hasn't cut down on crime the way it was supposed to.
In other words, "the law makes the murderer". I think I addressed this fallacy rather thoroughly in the article.
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.
How would you propose that we take these decisions away? Aside from mind control or killing them outright, we are left with incarceration or incapacitation of some kind. But it doesn't happen on its own.
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.
I am unfamiliar with any cases related to "three strikes" in which judges issued sentences in violation of the law. If the law allows a judge or jury to pronounce a light sentence, then objections to that fact should be addressed to the law, not to the people who are obeying it.
So the law incentivizes felons to behave worse, and it does not incentivize judges to behave better.
I truly fail to see how tougher sentences lead criminals to commit more crime. I understand the "they wouldn't shoot at cops if they weren't two-strikers" argument, but cannot agree with it anymore than I can agree that tough penalties for committing any crime are the motive behind committing them.
A criminal with a gun and the will to shoot it at someone is a potential murderer, regardless of his legal status. To argue that laws should be weakened to prevent criminals from killing lacks a reasonable moral foundation, however well-intentioned the motive.
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.
How about laws requiring tougher sentences for committing violent crimes? Wasn't that the problem in the first place?
So in a state with a "3 strikes" law and the death sentence, the difference between not killing a police officer and killing a police officer, who is trying to arrest you for what would be your 3rd strike, is receiving 25 years in prison or receiving a death sentence after being tried in a court of law.