[zimpenfish]

> California's 3 strikes law only applies to "serious" felonies.

But not all states are California.

> No one is getting life in prison for littering or insurance fraud

William James Rummel begs to differ[0] - fraudulent use of a credit card ($80), forged check ($28.36), failure to return payment for non-performed work ($120.75) and voila, life sentence (albeit later reduced to time served on procedural grounds.)

[0] also references "Graham v. West Virginia, a 1912 case which involved an individual convicted of three separate counts of horse thievery total[l]ing $235" which ended up in a life sentence.

In summary, some states may have sensible 3 strike laws, some may not.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rummel_v._Estelle

[Rebelgecko]

LAPD helicopters rarely if ever leave California. IMO we shouldn't base our law enforcement on what Texas was doing 50 years ago (or West Virginia before helicopters were even invented)

[zimpenfish]

> LAPD helicopters rarely if ever leave California.

The person I responded to said "so why do americans have more high speed chases?" Last I checked, "americans" covered more than just California.

> IMO we shouldn't base our law enforcement on what Texas was doing 50 years ago

Indeed not! California's Three Strikes law isn't all that great though[0].

"Project clients have been given life sentences for offenses including stealing one dollar in loose change from a parked car, possessing less than a gram of narcotics, and attempting to break into a soup kitchen."

I'd say two of those were even sillier than the Texas example.

But to its credit, California did vote to reform it in 2021 and people have been released since.

[0] https://law.stanford.edu/three-strikes-project/three-strikes...

[zimpenfish]

Not 2021! 2012. Stupid typo.

[SauntSolaire]

I would love to see more comprehensive stats to answer this question, rather than relying on cases studies you have to go back over one hundred years to find.

[zimpenfish]

> over one hundred years

Look, I know I'm old and it feels like it but 1980 is absolutely not one hundred years ago.

> I would love to see more comprehensive stats to answer this question

Have some more recent California examples (between 1994 when they created the law and 2012 when it was loosened): "[...] given life sentences for offenses including stealing one dollar in loose change from a parked car, possessing less than a gram of narcotics, and attempting to break into a soup kitchen."[0]

[0] https://law.stanford.edu/three-strikes-project/three-strikes...

[SauntSolaire]

1912 is over one hundred years ago, which is obviously what I was referring to.

My point is you're just pulling out a few incidents, and not even very many at that. I would like to see real stats on the subject, but it seems you're working under the "plural of anecdote is data" theory.

[wredcoll]

From my pseudo-ivory tower viewpoint it seems like the concept of 3 strikes has some validity but with totally the wrong response.

If someone is convicted three times of stealing in a year, even if it's like 1$, clearly something is not working here between this person and the system. It's a pipe dream but it would be nice if we could have some kind of board you could refer cases like that to with the mission statement of "figure out exactlt what is going on here" with powers to take actions that involved things other than prisons.

Alas.

[zimpenfish]

> convicted three times of stealing in a year [...] clearly something is not working here between this person and the system.

Yep, it's definitely a "this person needs some kind of help" signifier.

I can see the logic of "three top-line serious felonies" -> much more severe punishment (even though, I believe, more severe punishment doesn't actually tend to reduce recidivism but I guess if you get life without parole, that's not a huge issue) - if someone commits three distinct murders[0], obviously there's a problem with letting them loose in polite society.

> powers to take actions that involved things other than prisons.

I think various places have tried things like that and (IIRC) they tend to work out well - people get reintegrated into society, they don't reoffend, etc. - but all it takes is one agitator (right wing paper or politician looking for cheap points) to bring up the "soft on crime" angle and it all goes out the window.

[0] obvs. without justification - if they've killed in self-defence three times, that's different than three unprovoked straight out murders, but you'd still want some kind of "look, maybe don't go places where you end up in fights etc." conversation.