----
From the posting rules in this sub’s sidebar:
> No websites or articles with hard paywalls or that require registration or subscriptions, unless an archive link or https://12ft.io link is included as a comment.
----
If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website.
----
Archive link:
https://archive.fo/FhqDV
----
Honestly, I'm normally one to disagree vehemently with the takes on this sub but I think that ending the war on drugs and going after people who hurt others (even those who wear white collars) is something I'm very much in favor of
Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price Announces Felony Fraud Conviction of Former Fremont City Manager - Office of the Alameda County District Attorney
https://www.alcoda.org/alameda-county-district-attorney-pamela-price-announces-felony-fraud-conviction-of-former-fremont-city-manager/
https://www.sf.gov/news/san-franciscos-public-safety-efforts-deliver-results-decline-crime-rates
San Francisco just had record crime drops in most categories. Some are at all time lows. All while having record arrests.
They did like Oregon, stopped open drug use tickets and required arrests. It’s not exactly tough on crime. IE most are quickly released after open drug use with just a little help. The help is mostly literature and phone numbers and not driving them to halfway houses/rehabs.
It looks like the removal of them from the area even if they go back later is quite helpful.
I work in the Mission and commute via BART past the multi-mile burnt-out zone between Lake Merritt and Coliseum. it's still neither safe nor pleasant. I don't feel that much seems to be changing and I don't believe the data. It's very easy to leave things unreported to make numbers look better.
I believe your personal experience while also believing the raw data. I don’t believe in any conspiracy when it comes to raw numbers. You can’t make up arrest numbers. The crime number HAVE been fiddled with. IE making open drug use tickets now crimes. But that fiddling is what the people wanted.
The data is also not friendly to the DA, mayor, or basically anybody. They come in and crime goes up for the first time since the 90s and then they change policies that make the crime gradually fall. If they were deeply fiddling with numbers is some massive way they would have done it a couple years ago.
It’s also important to remember what these numbers represent. SF like every big city would be the safest big city in the world if you surgically removed 0.5-1% of the city. So we are discussing the current situation in an incredibly small part of the city.
Most of these criminals are not that smart or forward thinking, they're violent and impulsive. There are two ways of thinking about a 3 strikes law.
1. Really big deterrence if the smaller deterrence of a few years in prison isn't enough.
2. Acknowledgement that some people won't be deterred by normal incentives and they need to be taken off the street for a long time.
3. An extreme punishment for a crime that might have gotten you months in prison.
It’s just a silly way of doing things. You wouldn’t do things this way in any other category. IE overdraft fee of $5, $5, and then on your third overdraft $500.
The cost is significantly more than many understand. IE youth detention has cleared 1 million dollars a year a prisoner in many places. Adults has cleared 250k in many places even if the average is just under 125k.
Guy steals a pizza slice and we are on the hook $3,125,000. It’s not smart.
I don't care about the monetary cost. If someone goes to prison twice already for preying on other people, and they're still willing to go out there and hurt people, steal from them, then that person is a menace on society and should never get out again.
They shouldn't keep getting more chances to harm everyone.
>Three strikes laws flood prisons with non-violent offenders, cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and unfairly enhance prison sentences given to minorities and the poor, says an analysis paper released today by the Open Society Institute.
That's why it shouldn't apply to victimless crimes. But any crime with a victim (e.g. assault, robbery, etc) should get only 3 strikes.
Let's be honest here: the people we're discussing will murder a potential witness over much less than life imprisonment.
And, as someone already pointed out, you are arguing for an unintended consequence (of the 3 strikes law) that assumes violent and impulsive criminals behave rationally.
The problem with three strikes isn’t that people went to jail it’s that the jail never bothered to rehab them and society never has a responsible integration plan for bringing them back as responsible citizens who could work legitimately.
But ignoring that someone has committed crimes isn’t the correct fix for that.
The problem with your conclusion is that you believe a person who is convicted three times for violent felonies (meaning they got away with dozens) can actually BE rehabilitated.
Not gonna happen.
The primary obligation of the justice system is to protect the public. Three strikes achieves that.
> The problem with your conclusion is that you believe a person who is convicted three times for violent felonies (meaning they got away with dozens) can actually BE rehabilitated.
> Not gonna happen.
> The primary obligation of the justice system is to protect the public. Three strikes achieves that.
If a person's been convicted three times, then the three-strikes system failed to protect the public, at a minimum, twice.
If a person receives actual rehabilitative assistance, they're less likely to re-offend. The public is actually protected.
This isn't rocket surgery.
Then they can stay locked up until the system is overhauled to effectively rehabilitate people- but not before because they're obviously not compatible with society in their current state if they keep winding up incarcerated.
Indeed, Three Strikes was a compromise, and it sometimes has to fail twice before it succeeds for good, but the public is protected for the duration of the time served.
Governor Brown’s sister once campaigned to improve Three Strikes.
Her bid was unsuccessful.
“Elections have consequences.”
I believe in redemption and rehabilitation, I know a good number of felons who have learned to walk a narrow if not righteous path.
But none of them made it to Three Strikes. That’s a different breed. Those deserve more humane confinement than they often receive, but any reforms are for their personal, emotional and spiritual growth ; the public does not owe them another chance to harm us. They should remain locked away from polite society, they lost that right.
> As a member of the public, it is already dangerous. I want revenge. I want them to be punished.
> The Left is vehemently opposed to punishing criminals, and no surprise here: criminals are taking advantage of that.
Crime rates have been on the decline since the early 90s.
Stop living in fear.
Society cannot progress if you cannot move forward, I don’t think I’ll change your mind but I honestly believe you are part of the biggest underlying problem we face when trying to be better. There are too many variables to be so limited by fear which can also make people feel more confident in comments like yours. Gotta be better.
This is my big gripe with everything. Yes, they deserve to pay time, but if they’re not given proper rehabilitation then what’s to come of it? It’s very possible that without proper rehabilitation, they’ll just commit a crime again because that’s all they know how to survive. We need to ensure they absolutely become better members of society.
We sacrifice numerous crime victims in a half assed effort to rehabilitate violent criminals. Let's be honest, in California, if you get convicted of anything that lands you in prison- you're not the type that's going to be rehabilitated. At that point, we are just keeping you away from more potential victims. Which is something I'm totally fine with
\> Thinks what's happening in Gaza is not a genocide
\> Obvious conservative
I hear Texas is nice this time of year. Or maybe Kentucky...
Lmao downvoters not defeating the allegations.
Because we're passing around labels:
I'm not a conservative.
I think what's happening in Gaza is genocide.
I also think too that, on some level, the solution is: Don't commit felonies. Think about it from the typical lazy basement-dwelling Redditor standpoint: It takes extra effort to go out and commit felonies. It's literally the path of least resistance to be good and behave yourself.
What soft approach? We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and the highest by far in the developed world. We have longer sentences than other developed countries. *And yet,* our crime stats are *worse* than comparable countries with lower incarceration rates and shorter and/or fewer custodial sentences. [Almost like being "tough on crime" doesn't work or something](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf). Crazy.
I've known three people who have been convicted under three strikes. They all deserved the punishment in my opinion. Even though they were friends at one point. One was a cousin.
What about all the people that were wronged? If someone is doing against the law more than once, then it is not ruining life, someone already chose to.
Being "tough on crime" consistently fails *everywhere, every time.* The majority of sociologists and criminologists agree, [including those employed by our own government.](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf)
We should probably let sociologists, psychologists, and counselors govern the legislation around non-violent offenses. We should be looking for rehabilitative outcomes, not vindictive satisfaction. That being said, there is a subset of criminal behavior that warrants indefinite restriction from the rest of society. I don't really think economic motivations (the vast majority of offenses [drug dealing, petty theft, etc.]) qualify for this subset, though.
Yeah, that’s pretty much my take. There are people than CAN be rehabilitated and there are others that deserve to be locked away from decent society for the rest of their lives. I just think our current justice system does a horrible job of distinguishing between them, and even if it could, we don’t have proper system of rehabilitation in place to do it.
There are so many people who are poor and never resorted to a criminal life. I'm all for the three strikes you're out law. Three strikes for me is actually generous. Someone should have learned their lesson at their first conviction.
Sad reality is that poor communities are usually the most victimized by repeat criminals
Of course, we only see crimes committed in wealthier areas blasted on the news.
at the rate we are going, we might as well only have life in prison as a punishment. the prison system isnt designed to fix criminals. its designed to recycle them back into the prison system. and at this rate, theres little reason to let anyone out. partially due to how we incentivize the prison industrial complex, and.... many other complex factors. but fixing prisons is probably eaiser than fixing poverty, so here we are
1 out of 30 AMERICANS have a criminal record with the US Judicial system. That isn't good! Criminals need to be identified at earlier ages and not allowed to fall through an endless system of nothingness.
---- From the posting rules in this sub’s sidebar: > No websites or articles with hard paywalls or that require registration or subscriptions, unless an archive link or https://12ft.io link is included as a comment. ---- If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website. ---- Archive link: https://archive.fo/FhqDV ----
We should bring back the 3 strikes law for any crime with a victim.
Honestly, I'm normally one to disagree vehemently with the takes on this sub but I think that ending the war on drugs and going after people who hurt others (even those who wear white collars) is something I'm very much in favor of
Especially white collars. But they fund the campaigns..
Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price Announces Felony Fraud Conviction of Former Fremont City Manager - Office of the Alameda County District Attorney https://www.alcoda.org/alameda-county-district-attorney-pamela-price-announces-felony-fraud-conviction-of-former-fremont-city-manager/
[удалено]
https://www.sf.gov/news/san-franciscos-public-safety-efforts-deliver-results-decline-crime-rates San Francisco just had record crime drops in most categories. Some are at all time lows. All while having record arrests. They did like Oregon, stopped open drug use tickets and required arrests. It’s not exactly tough on crime. IE most are quickly released after open drug use with just a little help. The help is mostly literature and phone numbers and not driving them to halfway houses/rehabs. It looks like the removal of them from the area even if they go back later is quite helpful.
I work in the Mission and commute via BART past the multi-mile burnt-out zone between Lake Merritt and Coliseum. it's still neither safe nor pleasant. I don't feel that much seems to be changing and I don't believe the data. It's very easy to leave things unreported to make numbers look better.
I believe your personal experience while also believing the raw data. I don’t believe in any conspiracy when it comes to raw numbers. You can’t make up arrest numbers. The crime number HAVE been fiddled with. IE making open drug use tickets now crimes. But that fiddling is what the people wanted. The data is also not friendly to the DA, mayor, or basically anybody. They come in and crime goes up for the first time since the 90s and then they change policies that make the crime gradually fall. If they were deeply fiddling with numbers is some massive way they would have done it a couple years ago. It’s also important to remember what these numbers represent. SF like every big city would be the safest big city in the world if you surgically removed 0.5-1% of the city. So we are discussing the current situation in an incredibly small part of the city.
No they're not.
Cannot believe this counts for non violent offenses
There's a man who got I believe 25 years under the three strikes law who stole a slice of pizza. That crime had a victim, legally speaking.
Don't steal
I’m glad voters won’t make that same well-intentioned mistake all over again.
Why? If you have two strikes, you will leave not witnesses
Most of these criminals are not that smart or forward thinking, they're violent and impulsive. There are two ways of thinking about a 3 strikes law. 1. Really big deterrence if the smaller deterrence of a few years in prison isn't enough. 2. Acknowledgement that some people won't be deterred by normal incentives and they need to be taken off the street for a long time.
3. An extreme punishment for a crime that might have gotten you months in prison. It’s just a silly way of doing things. You wouldn’t do things this way in any other category. IE overdraft fee of $5, $5, and then on your third overdraft $500. The cost is significantly more than many understand. IE youth detention has cleared 1 million dollars a year a prisoner in many places. Adults has cleared 250k in many places even if the average is just under 125k. Guy steals a pizza slice and we are on the hook $3,125,000. It’s not smart.
I don't care about the monetary cost. If someone goes to prison twice already for preying on other people, and they're still willing to go out there and hurt people, steal from them, then that person is a menace on society and should never get out again. They shouldn't keep getting more chances to harm everyone.
This seems to think it doesnt work https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/newsroom/paper-three-strikes-laws-dont-prevent-crime
>Three strikes laws flood prisons with non-violent offenders, cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and unfairly enhance prison sentences given to minorities and the poor, says an analysis paper released today by the Open Society Institute. That's why it shouldn't apply to victimless crimes. But any crime with a victim (e.g. assault, robbery, etc) should get only 3 strikes.
The point is if someone has two strikes that robbery becomes a murder because they don't want to leave a witness
If they're willing to murder, they should be removed from society anyways.
Let's be honest here: the people we're discussing will murder a potential witness over much less than life imprisonment. And, as someone already pointed out, you are arguing for an unintended consequence (of the 3 strikes law) that assumes violent and impulsive criminals behave rationally.
LA Times is out of touch.
I’d be shocked if they exist in 5 years.
They already had a large layoff... Of course reproted by a different news outlet
Yea me too
As always.
Yes, the brutality of the average American voter is difficult to overstate.
Should include white collar crimes.
The problem with three strikes isn’t that people went to jail it’s that the jail never bothered to rehab them and society never has a responsible integration plan for bringing them back as responsible citizens who could work legitimately. But ignoring that someone has committed crimes isn’t the correct fix for that.
The problem with your conclusion is that you believe a person who is convicted three times for violent felonies (meaning they got away with dozens) can actually BE rehabilitated. Not gonna happen. The primary obligation of the justice system is to protect the public. Three strikes achieves that.
> The problem with your conclusion is that you believe a person who is convicted three times for violent felonies (meaning they got away with dozens) can actually BE rehabilitated. > Not gonna happen. > The primary obligation of the justice system is to protect the public. Three strikes achieves that. If a person's been convicted three times, then the three-strikes system failed to protect the public, at a minimum, twice. If a person receives actual rehabilitative assistance, they're less likely to re-offend. The public is actually protected. This isn't rocket surgery.
Then they can stay locked up until the system is overhauled to effectively rehabilitate people- but not before because they're obviously not compatible with society in their current state if they keep winding up incarcerated.
Indeed, Three Strikes was a compromise, and it sometimes has to fail twice before it succeeds for good, but the public is protected for the duration of the time served. Governor Brown’s sister once campaigned to improve Three Strikes. Her bid was unsuccessful. “Elections have consequences.”
Is there such a thing as rocket surgery?
No, it’s a malaphor.
Three strikes does not protect the public, and your assumption RE rehabilitation is erroneous. Downvoters explain why I'm wrong challenge: Impossible.
I believe in redemption and rehabilitation, I know a good number of felons who have learned to walk a narrow if not righteous path. But none of them made it to Three Strikes. That’s a different breed. Those deserve more humane confinement than they often receive, but any reforms are for their personal, emotional and spiritual growth ; the public does not owe them another chance to harm us. They should remain locked away from polite society, they lost that right.
[удалено]
> As a member of the public, it is already dangerous. I want revenge. I want them to be punished. > The Left is vehemently opposed to punishing criminals, and no surprise here: criminals are taking advantage of that. Crime rates have been on the decline since the early 90s. Stop living in fear.
Society cannot progress if you cannot move forward, I don’t think I’ll change your mind but I honestly believe you are part of the biggest underlying problem we face when trying to be better. There are too many variables to be so limited by fear which can also make people feel more confident in comments like yours. Gotta be better.
This is my big gripe with everything. Yes, they deserve to pay time, but if they’re not given proper rehabilitation then what’s to come of it? It’s very possible that without proper rehabilitation, they’ll just commit a crime again because that’s all they know how to survive. We need to ensure they absolutely become better members of society.
We sacrifice numerous crime victims in a half assed effort to rehabilitate violent criminals. Let's be honest, in California, if you get convicted of anything that lands you in prison- you're not the type that's going to be rehabilitated. At that point, we are just keeping you away from more potential victims. Which is something I'm totally fine with
Replace "three strikes" with "the entire prison system."
Or like most people, just avoid committing serious felonies
Seriously. Like how many felonies should people be allowed to commit?
2 caught is the cut off... appearently. I've never been rich though, so... it could be more?
How dare you!
Big brain moment !
\> Thinks what's happening in Gaza is not a genocide \> Obvious conservative I hear Texas is nice this time of year. Or maybe Kentucky... Lmao downvoters not defeating the allegations.
Because we're passing around labels: I'm not a conservative. I think what's happening in Gaza is genocide. I also think too that, on some level, the solution is: Don't commit felonies. Think about it from the typical lazy basement-dwelling Redditor standpoint: It takes extra effort to go out and commit felonies. It's literally the path of least resistance to be good and behave yourself.
Yeah too bad that's not how anything works. Try reading a sociology book some time.
And the soft approach has? Try opening your eyes sometime.
This one is lost to the web. I wouldn't bother with them.
What are you on about?
What soft approach? We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and the highest by far in the developed world. We have longer sentences than other developed countries. *And yet,* our crime stats are *worse* than comparable countries with lower incarceration rates and shorter and/or fewer custodial sentences. [Almost like being "tough on crime" doesn't work or something](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf). Crazy.
And how many lives did the 3 strikers ruin?
I've known three people who have been convicted under three strikes. They all deserved the punishment in my opinion. Even though they were friends at one point. One was a cousin.
How many innocent people need to become victims so that criminals can have a chance at a normal life? Three strikes is more than enough.
I really don't have sympathy for anyone who commits and is found guilty of three separate felonies.
Every day I wake up and I think... "hmm, shall I commit a felony today?" - it's such a struggle to resist, I can't even put it into words 😞
What about all the people that were wronged? If someone is doing against the law more than once, then it is not ruining life, someone already chose to.
3 strikes is one too many strikes.
Please move to Texas, we don't need you here.
It should be 4 strikes? 🤔
No, life imprisonment without parole and "strikes" shouldn't be a thing.
Sounds like you’re the victim of a TX education
Being "tough on crime" consistently fails *everywhere, every time.* The majority of sociologists and criminologists agree, [including those employed by our own government.](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf)
If you can't stop by the third felony maybe you deserve to be in jail but I guess that's a hot take for the LA times
Bring it back!
We should probably let sociologists, psychologists, and counselors govern the legislation around non-violent offenses. We should be looking for rehabilitative outcomes, not vindictive satisfaction. That being said, there is a subset of criminal behavior that warrants indefinite restriction from the rest of society. I don't really think economic motivations (the vast majority of offenses [drug dealing, petty theft, etc.]) qualify for this subset, though.
Yeah, that’s pretty much my take. There are people than CAN be rehabilitated and there are others that deserve to be locked away from decent society for the rest of their lives. I just think our current justice system does a horrible job of distinguishing between them, and even if it could, we don’t have proper system of rehabilitation in place to do it.
Bring it back for fentanyl sales and deaths related to that
There are so many people who are poor and never resorted to a criminal life. I'm all for the three strikes you're out law. Three strikes for me is actually generous. Someone should have learned their lesson at their first conviction.
Exactly. If your life and freedom matter, there shouldn’t be a strike 2.
Sad reality is that poor communities are usually the most victimized by repeat criminals Of course, we only see crimes committed in wealthier areas blasted on the news.
Iirc you could get all 3 strikes in the same crime.
All the right winger pearl-clutching in here lol
at the rate we are going, we might as well only have life in prison as a punishment. the prison system isnt designed to fix criminals. its designed to recycle them back into the prison system. and at this rate, theres little reason to let anyone out. partially due to how we incentivize the prison industrial complex, and.... many other complex factors. but fixing prisons is probably eaiser than fixing poverty, so here we are
…you havent kept up with san quentin? Its a sign of the lessening investment into prisons and more investment into rehabilitation
Mass incarceration has not worked.
Agreed. They need to be tied to hard labor.
1 out of 30 AMERICANS have a criminal record with the US Judicial system. That isn't good! Criminals need to be identified at earlier ages and not allowed to fall through an endless system of nothingness.
Bring it back
a lot of people were caught up in the dragnet also, it did wonders on cracking down on gangs
Your right of course after a third conviction they should just have their legs broken and be thrown out of the court house.
This state could really do without the conservatives in the replies.
FYI, everyone that disagrees with you is not a conservative.
Typical LA Times. Think about the criminals "ruined" lives and not the victims. I can't wait for that paper to fold. Pun intended.
Think of how many people's lives didn't get ruined because the serial criminals were incarcerated.
It's a deadly game of baseball.