Three Strike Law

[grandpa]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well damn Gramps, I believe you've finally nailed it. So will you persist in condemning capitalism inspite of this admission of the true cause of all the strife in this nation?

There is no contradiction in criticizng capitalism and the state. Both are outgrowths of the same general interests--authoritarianismm, hierarchy and elitism.
When these systematic aims thrive, we should expect more prisons nationally and internationally.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa It's not only a good idea, it's the only practical one for a free society. And you're predictably ignoring the other side of the coin, whether "the law" has a right to break a person, physically or psychologically. Grandpa h.

That's not the point. If you don't agree with a law or believe it to be unjust, you work to alter/repeal it within the bounds of our system, not just disregard it completely.

Quote by: grandpa If you're imprisoned for 25 years or more for petty crime, you are indeed being victimized. Grandpa h.

In your opinion.... I don't believe that's being victimized at all. In the previous example, he was given multiple chances to live in our society, without being imprisoned, and he CHOSE to break our laws and spend the next 25 years in prison..

[Chaossaber314]

Let's try this again. You said, "We do have separate prison facilities for teenagers vs adults. Ever heard of juvenile detention centers? I've never heard of anyone charged as an adult for basic possession ie, caught with a joint." I replied with the question, "Ever heard of some teenagers being charged as an adult for other crimes?" You made a specific statement that we have separate prision facilities for teenagers vs. adults and then asked if the person you responded to had heard of juvenile detention centers. You then stated that you've never heard of anyone being charged as an adult for basic possession. Now, consider the entirety of your statement (and only your statement) and answer the question, "Ever heard of some teenagers being charged as an adult for other crimes?" Of course, I'm referring to crimes other than basis possession. I asked the question because you seem to think that teenagers are never tried and incarcerated as adults.

The idiocy of this post is staggering. Because I know that children aren't sentenced as adults for lesser crimes such as possession, I don't think any children are charged as adults for any crimes? You don't think that me introducing the concept of charging children as adults and juvenile justice in general shows that I have at least a small grasp of it? Christ, dude.

You also seem to think that no human being has ever been charged as an adult for basic possession

No CHILD has ever been charged as an adult for basic possession which was exactly what the person I was responding to was discussing his fear of happening. Clearly you still need to read our posts again because you still don't get it. This is the last time I respond on this topic. At this point you are trolling.

I was not discussing whether or not adults were charged with adult crimes. What a stupid thing to discuss.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval That's not the point. If you don't agree with a law or believe it to be unjust, you work to alter/repeal it within the bounds of our system, not just disregard it completely.

If the system has unjust laws, it makes sense to consider working outside of its bounds.

Your defenses here have been weak. You just assume 25 years in prison for petty theft is just, both because the law exists and because someone received multiple wranings.
You disregard the very nature of forcing someobody to live in bars for 25 years, which would likely an regarded as an obscene decision if I made it--yet somehow if cops and lawmakers do it, it's above question.

And this is not to say no one should ever be jailed (that's not up to me alone to decide either way), but that we have the capacity to critically examine the law.
I just don't think petty theft is a serious crime, or that most crimes are serious enough to merit such harsh sentencing. Anyone can commit crimes as a youth, or in a moment of passion or absentmindedness.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Support of the three strike law is an admission that rights no longer exist, and that you live, work and operate totally at "permission" of the society.

Its totally absurd, ignores rights and right to trial, ignores the role of American Government, and the goal of Justice as defined by individual rights.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Support of the three strike law is an admission that rights no longer exist, and that you live, work and operate totally at "permission" of the society. Its totally absurd, ignores rights and right to trial, ignores the role of American Government, and the goal of Justice as defined by individual rights.

Agreed. I think it is ultimately an admission of widespread miscarriage of justice as its use in serious crimes implies that they are getting off the hook too easily and are readily able to commit further serious crimes, and its use in lesser crimes is a simple example of tyrany.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa If the system has unjust laws, it makes sense to consider working outside of its bounds.

Not in our society. You belive them to be unjust, you have them changed legally.

Quote by: grandpa Your defenses here have been weak. You just assume 25 years in prison for petty theft is just, both because the law exists and because someone received multiple wranings.

My defenses have been weak?? What are you talking about? I showed you what it takes to get a "strike" in Califorinia, where I live...where did it say "petty theft" would get you a strike or 25 years for that matter?

Quote by: grandpa You disregard the very nature of forcing someobody to live in bars for 25 years, which would likely an regarded as an obscene decision if I made it--yet somehow if cops and lawmakers do it, it's above question.

The people in CA voted on our 3 strike laws and they were passed. I happen to agree with them. If you're going to make a habbit out of doing the things on the stike list, then you deserve to be in jail...for a long long longgggg time.

Quote by: grandpa And this is not to say no one should ever be jailed (that's not up to me alone to decide either way), but that we have the capacity to critically examine the law. I just don't think petty theft is a serious crime, or that most crimes are serious enough to merit such harsh sentencing. Anyone can commit crimes as a youth, or in a moment of passion or absentmindedness. Grandpa h.

Did you read the list I posted on how to get a "strike"? Are those petty?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Dieval Did you read the list I posted on how to get a "strike"? Are those petty?

Do you consider someone who steals about $150 worth of videotapes to be a dangerous, violent criminal who deserves 50 years in prison?

The Supreme Court: Are Penalties Required in “Third Strike” Laws Too Cruel? — Infoplease.com

In November 1995, Andrade attempted to steal five videotapes from a Kmart. He was arrested upon leaving the store. Two weeks later, before trial on the first videotape theft offense, he was arrested outside another Kmart for trying to steal five more tapes.
...
All previous crimes were nonviolent.
...
Andrade, who was 37, was convicted and sentenced to 25 years for each of the videotape petty theft counts (strikes three and four). According to California's three strikes law, these sentences had to be served consecutively (not at the same time), so Andrade would become eligible for parole in 50 years at age 87.

What say you about this?

Sidenote: This also shows the danger of merely reading the law and not understanding how it is applied. Dieval correctly quoted the law but didn't understand that it could apply this way.

[Dieval]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Do you consider someone who steals about $150 worth of videotapes to be a dangerous, violent criminal who deserves 50 years in prison? The Supreme Court: Are Penalties Required in “Third Strike” Laws Too Cruel? — Infoplease.com In November 1995, Andrade attempted to steal five videotapes from a Kmart. He was arrested upon leaving the store. Two weeks later, before trial on the first videotape theft offense, he was arrested outside another Kmart for trying to steal five more tapes. ... All previous crimes were nonviolent. ... Andrade, who was 37, was convicted and sentenced to 25 years for each of the videotape petty theft counts (strikes three and four). According to California's three strikes law, these sentences had to be served consecutively (not at the same time), so Andrade would become eligible for parole in 50 years at age 87. What say you about this? Sidenote: This also shows the danger of merely reading the law and not understanding how it is applied. Dieval correctly quoted the law but didn't understand that it could apply this way.

From the link you posted -

Quote by: link Andrade, who was a long-time heroin addict, had a 15-year criminal history with five felonies and two misdemeanors on his record.

No one twisted his arm to commit these crimes. He brought the punishiment on himself. To say that he was put away for "petty theft" is innacurate. He had a 15 YEAR criminal history with 5 OTHER felonies....I won't shed any tears having this guy locked up for 25 - 50 years.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Dieval From the link you posted - No one twisted his arm to commit these crimes. He brought the punishiment on himself. To say that he was put away for "petty theft" is innacurate. He had a 15 YEAR criminal history with 5 OTHER felonies....I won't shed any tears having this guy locked up for 25 - 50 years.

No, to say he was put in prison for that time is precisely accurate. That was the crime he committed THIS TIME.

Causing him to serve a long sentence in part for past crimes for which he had already been punished violates the 8th Amendment.

[Dieval]

Quote by: tivodan1116 violates the 8th Amendment.

The supreme court disagrees with you...

Quote by: YOUR LINK Andrade appealed the case to the California State Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court sentence. Next he appealed it to the 9th Circuit Court, which overturned the sentence as being “grossly disproportionate” to the crime committed. The state of California then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The issue to be decided by the United States Supreme Court was whether the California “three strikes” law violates the Eighth Amendment protection against “cruel and unusual” punishment. In a closely divided 5 to 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state and overturned the circuit court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the decision for the Court and was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Souter wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens. In writing the opinion for the court, O'Connor ruled that the California court did not err, but instead the 9th Circuit Court erred in overturning the California court on the principle of “gross disproportionality”. O'Connor wrote: * “The gross disproportionality principle reserves a constitutional violation for only the extraordinary case. In applying this principle … it was not an unreasonable application of our clearly established law for the California Court of Appeal to affirm Andrade's sentence of two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison.”

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval Not in our society. You belive them to be unjust, you have them changed legally.

People don't have to subvert unjust laws "legally."

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Dieval The supreme court disagrees with you...

You know, the appeal to authority approach doesn't work very well with those presenting facts challenging authority.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: grandpa People don't have to subvert unjust laws "legally."

This is why I don't take you seriously.
This is the way our society works. You don't have the option to pick and choose which laws you want to follow and which ones you think you're too good for.

Quote by: grandpa You know, the appeal to authority approach doesn't work very well with those presenting facts challenging authority. Grandpa h.

What? :confused:

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Dieval What? :confused:

What he's saying is that I know the Supreme Court disagrees with me. I am arguing that they are wrong. So, therefore, you posting that they disagree with me is not really support for your argument nor is it refutation for my argument.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dieval said: This is why I don't take you seriously. This is the way our society works. You don't have the option to pick and choose which laws you want to follow and which ones you think you're too good for.

Really? How many speeders in your area today?

How many times have you discharged fireworks in city limits?

How many times in your life have you jay-walked?



Do you, or do you not understand what is entailed in the term "civil disobedience"?

You are so grossly wrong, I suppose the sky is purple where you live to?

[Dieval]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I am arguing that they are wrong.

Your arguing a moot point. The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the law. Given this person's history and the current laws in CA it sounds like a valid decision to me. Maybe my opinion would change if I did quite a bit more research on the subject, but I don't have the time for that right now.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Really? How many speeders in your area today? How many times have you discharged fireworks in city limits? How many times in your life have you jay-walked?

Your examples are irrellevant because they have nothing to do with the topic in this thread.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dieval said: This is why I don't take you seriously. This is the way our society works. You don't have the option to pick and choose which laws you want to follow and which ones you think you're too good for.

Sorry, you forgot to note that I PROVED YOU WRONG, and you are too intellectually shallow to admit it.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Sorry, you forgot to note that I PROVED YOU WRONG, and you are too intellectually shallow to admit it.

Actually, the 3 topics you suggested and the topic of this thread all have no bearing on "civil disobedience". Also, while civil disobedience may begin the process to repeal/change laws, the act alone does not.

So there were some elements of truth in your statement