#2 Posted on 5.3.03 1457.03 Reposted on: 5.3.10 1459.01
I kind of fall in the middle here. I have zero tolerance for repeat violent offenders. I saw a case here in New York where a man stabbed his wife 16 times in front of their 7-year-old daughter, and got 8 years. That's ridiculous. That guy's getting out before his daughter is even old enough take care of herself. I would love a three-strikes law that would put that guy away for 25-life.
What I have a problem with can be summed up in the following paragraph from the article.
The California law requires a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for any felony conviction if the criminal was previously convicted of two serious or violent felonies. It also permits judges to treat as felonies a third offense that would otherwise be a misdemeanor.
Two problems: "Serious or violent felonies." Violent, sure. But what's a "serious" felony? I suspect that to the folks who wrote this law, stuff like possesion of narcotics withOUT intent to distribute is "serious." Although I guess I'd have to look at the penal code before I made a judgement on that.
But what's really ridiculous is allowing judges to treat as felonies something that's not a felony. At least have some guidlines (maybe a violent misdemeanor?) for this.
#3 Posted on 6.3.03 1317.10 Reposted on: 6.3.10 1329.04
This sounds good, cause it'll get asses off the streets. What I would guess, is that they'll just upgrade the third offense a notch or two and throw the book at them, cause if they're already two time losers, they should already be in jail.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE