Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
(11 votes) 12:09 pm
January 25, 2012
Offline
shantyirish said
Well Jonf
Obviously you've never been a victim of crime, for if you'd had your home burgled and you discovered the dude had been doing this hundreds of times you might say, "damn good thing my wife (or kids) weren't home as it could have cost them their life?" or then maybe you'd say, "big deal, the dude had a tough time getting a job" and feel sorry for him.
Me, no thanks. I wouldn't put my children at risk. These multiple offense dudes need to be locked up if they'd been given chance after chance to get with the program. 20 years for a thief that stole one thing once does not happen-20 years for a dude that's been committing crime for decades is OK with me.
Shanty
No, I've been the victim of crime, just nothing involving 3 strikes / out here. Bike theft, car stereo theft, vandalism, etc. All annoying. None that would merit a substantial jail sentence, regardless of their criminal background, imo.
Your comments about feeling sorry for the criminal are made up by you, of course. I should have known better than to think you're capable of discussing a real topic like an adult.
Penalties should fit the crime. It's that simple.
12:22 pm
July 8, 2010
Offline
Jonf
Go to
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/reports…..Sd2009.pdf
page 16 and look at the statistics.
Less than 1% of the prison population in California is there for weed related offenses.
Dudes are not incarcerated for minor, non violent crimes, unless of course you think a felon with a gun, or manufacturer of meth is non violent.
Attempting to denigrate me with your verbal whip is unfortunate.
You're entitled to your opinion that's why I tried to keep this discussion on factual experiences not on philosophical 'feelings'.
I'm done here
Shanty
12:27 pm
February 10, 2011
Offline
shantyirish said
Fact:I own an interest in a business that suffered almost monthly vandalism until the three strikes law went into effect. Vandalism is now once every four to five years.
With only one exception, the losers that committed these acts of vandalism (we caught all but a few of the dudes over eight years before the law went into effect) had violent offenses in the past. We prosecuted everyone without exception, including the one person without a prior.
Since the inception of the law the losers all had prior violent offenses. I've got files of over 50 people and only one statistic stands out.
60% of the dudes were from other states before the law was passed. Since the law went into effect only one person was a non native. One might deduce that folks from other states just don't come here to commit that type of crime.
That is my personal experience with the law.
So in the 8 years prior to 1994 you had "almost monthly" vandalism, say 10 a year, or 80 cases. Then in the 18 years since, you've had one every 4.5 years, or four cases. That's an abrupt drop of approximately 97%. I really don't think the rate of vandalism dropped 97% across Los Angles in one year.
The property crime rate has been dropping steadily in Los Angeles since three years before the 3 strikes law. It has also dropped in areas where that law is not enforced.
And the fact that one of the four was from out of state is statistically irrelevant – it's still within the margin of error of a 60% out-of-state ratio when you've only got four people in your sample.
1:25 pm
July 8, 2010
Offline
I can't resist one more stab at this.
Los Angeles property crime rate dropped a measly 2.5% in the few years before passage of the 3 strikes law. Once the law was implemented the rate dropped 20% within three/four years and now stands at 50% of what it was prior to the implementation of 3 strikes.
"Dropping steadily" is technically correct, one less crime per year in a series of years would be "dropping steadily".
FWIW Shanty has an MS in statistics.
PS Jonf and Mick are entitled to their opinions regarding 3 strikes, but they can't dispute that Oscars killer is a convicted felon, at 22 years of age. When his rap sheet is exposed you have to wonder what the heck this guy was doing on the streets?
Oscars death was senseless, as well as tragic.
2:04 pm
August 19, 2009
Offline
Three strikes and you are out, is a good law. If you are stupid or heartless to commit a third crime, knowing you will be going to jail, then you should go to jail.
Marijuana should not be part of this law, as it is legal in CA. A medical marijuana card should be on the back of each California Driver license automatically; this way we can solve many problems and expenses to enforce a law, which is unenforceable. Just walk on Venice Boardwalk and tell me how the Marijuana law is enforce, LOL!
Oscar’s death is tragic, his family should sue the city, if the person committed this crime, should have been in jail at the time he shot Oscar. If that the case, the city should get on its knees and beg for forgiveness.
3:26 pm
February 10, 2011
Offline
There was no sudden drop after 1994. The crime rate was already declining.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/cj_…..13107.aspx
Multiple studies have found 3-strikes to be ineffective in reducing crime. The decline in crime after 1994 was the same in regions of California that did not enforce 3-strikes as in those that did. The only people who benefited from 3-strikes were the prison industry.
4:04 pm
January 25, 2012
Offline
shantyirish said
JonfGo to
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/reports…..Sd2009.pdf
page 16 and look at the statistics.
Less than 1% of the prison population in California is there for weed related offenses.
Dudes are not incarcerated for minor, non violent crimes, unless of course you think a felon with a gun, or manufacturer of meth is non violent.
Attempting to denigrate me with your verbal whip is unfortunate.
You're entitled to your opinion that's why I tried to keep this discussion on factual experiences not on philosophical 'feelings'.
I'm done here
Shanty
I will look at the stats, but I never claimed anything about just "weed."
As for denigrating, umm, maybe you've already forgotten, but you're the one who started down that path. So now you're being a hypocrite as well.
Finally, there is a difference between "feelings" and philosophy of how laws should work. There's nothing emotional about my view -- it is based on reason and a focus on rights. If anybody's opinions are based on "feelings," maybe it's you -- ever consider that your own experiences with those vandals have warped your view on our criminal justice system?
There's a reason crime victims aren't the ones judging defendants and sentencing them.
As I've stated, and you've made no attempt to refute, "Penalties should fit the crime. It's that simple."
4:09 pm
January 25, 2012
Offline
shantyirish said
I can't resist one more stab at this.Los Angeles property crime rate dropped a measly 2.5% in the few years before passage of the 3 strikes law. Once the law was implemented the rate dropped 20% within three/four years and now stands at 50% of what it was prior to the implementation of 3 strikes.
"Dropping steadily" is technically correct, one less crime per year in a series of years would be "dropping steadily".
FWIW Shanty has an MS in statistics.
PS Jonf and Mick are entitled to their opinions regarding 3 strikes, but they can't dispute that Oscars killer is a convicted felon, at 22 years of age. When his rap sheet is exposed you have to wonder what the heck this guy was doing on the streets?
Oscars death was senseless, as well as tragic.
I haven't questioned whether he should have been out -- I don't know why a violent criminal would be released early. I don't know the details of his crime(s), aside from seeing that he had been sentenced for 9 months for domestic violence, aggravated something, etc. If he had priors before that, letting him out early seems especially unwise. As a wise man here wrote, "Penalties should fit the crime. It's that simple." 3 months for a violent crime that carried a 9-month sentence doesn't appear to fit the crime.
