[SomeStupidPoint]

Even if it was -- not all illegal (or wrong) things are equally wrong.

I'm much more okay with, eg, petty theft than murder, and would find it weird if people tried to make people stealing candybars from Walmart out to be equal to murderers.

[trhway]

>would find it weird if people tried to make people stealing candybars from Walmart out to be equal to murderers.

it is pretty equal for the 3rd strike

[nnfy]

Except it is completely unequal because you've been given 3 chances to follow the laws of the society in which you live. And because sentencing will still be much less severe than that of murder.

[Buge]

Is it really much less severe than murder? The guy in arkad's link got life for stealing $153 of videotapes.

And some people make the argument that people commit on average 3 felonies a day https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...

[mulmen]

Why three? Why not two or five? What's so special about three that it fits such a wide range of offenses?

[nnfy]

Why not three? This "wide range of offenses" generally applies to felonies, which are grevious enough to be placed into their own category with its own suite of punishments, and it is not entirely unreasonable to apply a singular repeat offense rule to all of them. The fact that the number seems arbitrary to you does not make it invalid.

I am sure we can agree that repeat felony offenders need to be handled specially, and, unfortunately, given the [archaic] nature of the judicial system, laws must be codified and at least in theory represent majority agreement. Whether influenced by baseball or something else, three is the number that lawmakers deemed reasonable, and you have not presented a valid argument against the concept or the number.

[mulmen]

Three strikes applies to both violent and non-violent felonies and the example earlier in the thread is for petty theft. Do you consider those crimes to be equal? Are all felonies equal?

Why does sentencing vary but strikes do not? Why is there a "suite of punishments" for these felonies but only one number of strikes?

I never said the concept of strikes is wrong or even that three is the wrong number. I asked why the value is fixed across different crimes because it seems arbitrary. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. My question stands, why three instead of some other number?

Do you have a reason for three strikes other than "because that's what we always did" or "baseball"? If those are the only reasons then I think we need to rethink this practice.

[freeone3000]

Baseball.

[mulmen]

I rest my case.

[jack9]

Isn't the 3 strikes system for felonies?

[arkad]

Surprisingly, no. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1143010...

[z574389659]

Actually yes. But California allows some stupid felonies. Petty theft with priors can be charged as a felony, so, third strike can be shoplifting a candybar, since a third strike for stealing anything can be a felony at the prosecutor's discretion. So, it has to be three felonies, but the third doesn't have to be violent, and "prior conviction" upgrades make a lot of petty third strikes "felonies" in CA that would not be such elsewhere.