Three Strike Law

[chaosthedragon]

I think the three strike law is just and works. Someone who breaks the law three times deserves up to 25 years to life in jail.
Some say that the law is too cruel because it affcets both violent and non violent offenders, but like the old saying "You fool me once shame on you, you fool me twice shame on me."
What do you think.

[Milton Bradley]

I think you have compared like apples, and that your well chosen example cliche "You fool me once shame on you, you fool me twice shame on me" is equally uninformed, and adolecent.


A) Taxpayers cannot afford, and should not be asked to lock non-violent offenders away.

B) It distracts from the real issue of the constitutionality of the underlying laws they use to prosecute the targets of these laws. ( Almost exclusively drug users. )

C) The potential of being seen as cruel, and unusual punishment. ( How else would one classify being "interned" with violent criminals where sodomy laws are not enforced? )

[Gods_Mercenary]

We really don't have the resources to lock up non-violent offenders forever, and I agree with Milton that we should have seperate prison facilities for teenagers caught with a joint and rapists and gangbangers, that and the stigma of being imprisoned in the first place seems to be what drives formerly compliant criminals into three time repeaters.

[chaosthedragon]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I think you have compared like apples, and that your well chosen example cliche "You fool me once shame on you, you fool me twice shame on me" is equally uninformed, and adolecent. A) Taxpayers cannot afford, and should not be asked to lock non-violent offenders away. B) It distracts from the real issue of the constitutionality of the underlying laws they use to prosecute the targets of these laws. ( Almost exclusively drug users. ) C) The potential of being seen as cruel, and unusual punishment. ( How else would one classify being "interned" with violent criminals where sodomy laws are not enforced? )

A) since CA acted the 3 strike law 10 years ago crime has decrease by 2million and saved $28 billion over the span of 10 since the law was put in place.
B)The use of most drugs can and almost always lead to more violent crimes, but i do believe that drug abusers should receive drug rehabilitation rather the jail sentence, but sometimes that just wont work.
C) This might sound cruel but anyone stupid enough to break the law 3 times and get caught deserves the punishments handed out. It does not matter what the crimes were, the first crime could be a mistake, the second could be court error (its rare but it does happen)But the third time is unacceptable. Laws are put in place to protect the common people and should be abide

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: chaosthedragon A) since CA acted the 3 strike law 10 years ago crime has decrease by 2million and saved $28 billion over the span of 10 since the law was put in place. B)The use of most drugs can and almost always lead to more violent crimes, but i do believe that drug abusers should receive drug rehabilitation rather the jail sentence, but sometimes that just wont work. C) This might sound cruel but anyone stupid enough to break the law 3 times and get caught deserves the punishments handed out. It does not matter what the crimes were, the first crime could be a mistake, the second could be court error (its rare but it does happen)But the third time is unacceptable. Laws are put in place to protect the common people and should be abide

When did "the people" empower your government with the jurisdiction to regulate consumption?


Here are a few broad quotes concerning the power of empowering the government with authority to regulate individual behavior.

"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded." -Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)

Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs. These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the cause of censorship, inquisition, intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters. -Ludwig von Mises, Austrian-born NYU Professor and free market advocate, 1949

Whenever you hear a policeman, politician, or prosecutor proclaiming zero tolerance for ``drug activities'', remember this well: Fortune 500 transnational corporations, with DEA licenses, manufacture vast quantities of amphetamines and other DEA Schedule 2, 3, 4, and 5 psychoactives, perfectly legally. The drugs are transported around the country, perfectly legally, by the Postal Service, UPS, Federal Express, and other corporate shipping empires. In hospitals, cocaine and morphine (among other infamous drugs of abuse) are standard and legal anesthetic options. The military equips medics with ketamine (a phencyclidine, as is PCP) for use as an emergency general anesthetic in the field. Licensed physicians routinely prescribe many of these drugs - for example, Ritalin (a controlled amphetamine) and Percodan (containing oxycodone, a codeine analogue narcotic) - to children and to adults. Licensed pharmacists routinely dispense these drugs, perfectly legally, from the corner drugstore, and people with prescriptions bring them home and put them in their medicine cabinets, perfectly legally. In the United States, under 21 USC 841, anyone who engages in these activities without a license ``shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 10 years or more than life'' in large bulk quantities and ``shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which may not be less than 5 years and not more than 40 years and if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be not less than 20 years or more than life'' in lesser bulk quantities. These sentences cannot be suspended, converted to probation, or paroled (murder, rape, mutilating assault, and other horrible violent crimes with actual individual victims, can usually be partially or fully suspended, partially or fully converted to probation, or paroled). Multimillion dollar fines can also be imposed, on top of imprisonment. In Canada, the Narcotic Control Act specifies life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking in narcotics (e.g. Percodan) - unless you have a license, in which case it is perfectly legal. What these laws mean is obvious: have the piece of paper, A-OK, lack the piece of paper, the state will destroy your life. The situation with certain firearms is quite similar, as explored in the Disarmament Agenda. These are the trappings of a vicious, intense police state. From the bookshelf: Opiates and Political Power in America: The Story of How the Drug Enforcement Administration Came to Be. by Edward Jay Epstein

Quotes provided by The Architecture of Modern Political Power


That's not the type of Police State I want to live in, and it's certainly not the "America" I pleged my allegiance too.


My allegiance is to he constitution, and the country for which it stands.

[chaosthedragon]

forget all of that and let me simply things a bit the government makes laws to protect the people from others not themselves, you can drink yourself to death smoke till your lungs die, but when it comes to others safety then they must act drugs that can impair your judgment and cause harm to others, others are what they are after.
People always think about there own needs there own pleasures but don't stop to think about others, and how the actions affects those around them

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: chaosthedragon forget all of that and let me simply things a bit the government makes laws to protect the people from others not themselves, you can drink yourself to death smoke till your lungs die, but when it comes to others safety then they must act drugs that can impair your judgment and cause harm to others, others are what they are after. People always think about there own needs there own pleasures but don't stop to think about others, and how the actions affects those around them

Actually, the problem is that some people are not critical of the information that they are spoon fed, and do not try investigating things for themselves.


If you intend to use government statistics, and information to support your case, you had better be informed of these. These guys are going to make life rough for you.


Schaffer Library of Drug Policy

Drug War Facts

[Osborn F Enready]

chaosthedragon said: I think the three strike law is just and works.

Based on what, and what is the scope of that information? (Economic/Social Blowback, respect for authority, scale of the census of opinion and data?!?)

All laws are not equal, nor should all punishment be equal. Sounds absurd to me, on all levels.

chaosthedragon said: Someone who breaks the law three times deserves up to 25 years to life in jail.

Based on what, did you arrive at this amount of time, cost and "version" of "supposed" justice?

Were you born in the U.S.?

chaosthedragon said: Some say that the law is too cruel because it affcets both violent and non violent offenders, but like the old saying "You fool me once shame on you, you fool me twice shame on me." What do you think.

I think it sounds like the "stone the witch in the town square" method of justice, not something reasonable, or that I would tolerate or support.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary We really don't have the resources to lock up non-violent offenders forever, and I agree with Milton that we should have seperate prison facilities for teenagers caught with a joint and rapists and gangbangers, that and the stigma of being imprisoned in the first place seems to be what drives formerly compliant criminals into three time repeaters.

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.

[thx1138]

You fool me once shame on you, you fool me twice shame on me." What do you think.

I think you have that idiom wrong doesn't go like this...
fool me once.... shame on.... shame on you, you fool me
can't get fooled again!

YouTube - George W. Bush at his best : Fool me once....

You seem very anti-drug do you think Bush should have a been jailed for DUI?
CNN.com - Bush acknowledges 1976 DUI charge - November 2, 2000

[grandpa]

Three strikes laws are incredibly unreasonable, most often punishing minor crimes. They serve best to prop up the private prison industry and establish a class of easily exploited prison workers.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Overall, I don't think the 3 strikes law is such a bad deal. I've been living with the 3 strikes law for quite a while now and it's very easy to not have this law affect you...I'll even share the secret with you guys.....but don't tell anyone...... "don't commit serious crimes" :rolleyes:

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. No one forces anyone to commit serious crimes and if you do, you pay the penalty for it.

[Osborn F Enready]

No suprise you support it Dieval....

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No suprise you support it Dieval....

Neither am I.

The mantra is this: Prisons and laws are good. Shut up.

Grandpa h.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No suprise you support it Dieval....

Did you not like my advice? I thought it was pretty straight foward and to the point.... "don't commit serious crimes" It's not like this is a big secret here or something...the 3 strikes laws have been around for quite some time. If people want to commit crimes, then they should be prepared to do the time...otherwise, take my advice and "don't commit serious crimes"...

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Dieval Did you not like my advice? I thought it was pretty straight foward and to the point.... "don't commit serious crimes" It's not like this is a big secret here or something...the 3 strikes laws have been around for quite some time. If people want to commit crimes, then they should be prepared to do the time...otherwise, take my advice and "don't commit serious crimes"...

Your heros do it all the time when they trample our constitution, yet you still cheer from the sidelines.


Oops, a little more hypocricy exposed.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: chaosthedragon I think the three strike law is just and works. Someone who breaks the law three times deserves up to 25 years to life in jail.

Why? What if the law that they broke was an unconstiutional or otherwise unjust law?

Some say that the law is too cruel because it affcets both violent and non violent offenders, but like the old saying "You fool me once shame on you, you fool me twice shame on me." What do you think.

How about it just costs too much money to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care for these people?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: chaosthedragon forget all of that and let me simply things a bit the government makes laws to protect the people from others not themselves, you can drink yourself to death smoke till your lungs die, but when it comes to others safety then they must act drugs that can impair your judgment and cause harm to others, others are what they are after. People always think about there own needs there own pleasures but don't stop to think about others, and how the actions affects those around them

So how is it a danger to others for you to possess a small quantity (or even large quantity) of marijuana? How is it a danger to others for you to grow it or to grow hemp? How is it a danger to others for you not to wear a seatbelt when you are driving or are a passenger in a car?

No, government today has presumed to take it upon itself to protect people from themselves.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think it sounds like the "stone the witch in the town square" method of justice, not something reasonable, or that I would tolerate or support.

If the witch was demonstrably a threat to others (she had used her craft to harm others, for example), I would support stoning her in the town square more than I would support feeding, clothing, housing, and providing free medical care for her the rest of her life.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 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.

Ever heard of some teenagers being charged as an adult for other crimes?