home

NY Times Opposes Three-Strikes Laws

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:28:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Unwisely yet predictably, Connecticut legislators are considering enacting a three-strikes law in response to a gruesome multiple murder last month by two inmates with lengthy records.

The New York Times has an editorial today in opposition.

The appeal of a “three strikes and you’re out” law is understandable, but these laws have proven to be blunt instruments that cause more injustice than they prevent. In California, which has a particularly draconian law, a man who shoplifted $153.54 worth of videotapes was sent to jail for 50 years. These laws are not only overly harsh. They are enormously expensive, because of all of the prison cells that are needed to warehouse minor criminals who pose little threat to society, many of whom are elderly by the end of their sentence.

....adopting a one-size-fits-all sentencing system makes no more sense than releasing criminals without adequate information.

So many of our worst and most draconian laws stem from reaction to a single crime. As I've written repeatedly,

More...

Legislation should never be passed out of grief and passion or in response to a singular event, no matter how horrific. Cooler heads are needed when our fundamental liberties are at stake.

.... One size fits all justice doesn’t work, particularly when it involves non-flexible penalties for everyone, regardless of the individual circumstances of the offense and the character and history of the offender.

It's time to get smart on crime and the first step is leaving the failures of the "tough on crime" crowd behind us.

< HuffPo to Take On Police Stings in Bathrooms | On Iraq: General Potemkin, Gettysburg on the Tigris, Whither The Netroots? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NY Times Opposes Three-Strikes Laws | 6 comments (6 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    You are so right! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by womanwarrior on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 12:32:56 AM EST
    I hope all our brothers and sisters in Connecticut rise up and tell their legislators not to do this.  
    ceasing the moment for their.. (none / 0) (#2)
    by dutchfox on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 06:41:36 AM EST
    own "political" glory, eh? so self-serving, these politicians. They're exhibiting those stupid thinking errors again...avoiding the root causes: the terrible state of prisons. The prisoners wouldn't be in prison if our esteemed lege members turned their focus on crap education, job and economic inequalties, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Only the fat-cat politiicians benefit.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by dutchfox on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 07:26:02 AM EST
    Does it really surprise anyone that elected officials (who only get elected because they are financed by the wealthy and corporations)collude with those that got them elected in order to enrich their benefactors and at the same time ensure their reelection? I'm thinking of the increasing privitisation of prisons. 'Tis big biz, innit?

    [ Parent ]
    We know from years of experience that (none / 0) (#4)
    by JSN on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 08:47:26 AM EST
    they are not fixing the problem with their parole system and as a consequence other similar incidents can occur in the future. What they are doing instead is to respond to public outrage by being tough on criminals. Once they have passed a three-strikes-and-your-out law they are stuck with it. They can't repeal it without looking dumb. They are probably spending more on corrections than they want and if they pass it corrections will eat everyone lunch.

    I wonder what they will do the next time they have a parole system
    malfunction?

    well sure it does, (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:08:21 AM EST
    ....adopting a one-size-fits-all sentencing system makes no more sense than releasing criminals without adequate information.

    it relieves everyone of the burden of having to actually think. this is why "zero tolerance" rules are so popular in school systems nowadays, you just pick one from column A, and one from column B.

    In reality... (none / 0) (#6)
    by diogenes on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 09:14:10 PM EST
    The rare sandwich crook notwithstanding (and you don't get a felony for simple theft), effective three strikes laws let a DA get a plea bargain from nondangerous people and let a DA use a lower level third felony charge to lock up truly dangerous crooks for life before they are arrested for the dangerous crime.  As long as each strike is a felony, the videotape shoplifter won't get caught.
    Like child molesters, dangerous crooks commit many crimes before being caught for one; I doubt that many people with three felony convictions have committed just three felonies in their lives.  All it means is that of many felonies they committed they were arrested for and convicted for three.

    I am not a big fan of mandatory sentences, (none / 0) (#7)
    by Pancho on Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:59:45 PM EST
    but I have two comments:

    1- If you are stupid/lazy enough to still be stealing after you have two strikes, you deserve whatever you get.

    2- If mandatory sentences go away, will the ACLU be bitching every time a minority gets a harsher sentence than a white guy?

    NY Times Opposes Three-Strikes Laws | 6 comments (6 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment