A Three Strikes Law - BuzzJack Music Forum

BuzzJack - Entertainment Discussion _ General Discussion _ News and Politics

Latest Site News

Hozier gets a second week at number one

Hozier climbs to number one

A chart double for Beyonce

5 Pages

1 2 3 > »

A Three Strikes Law

Display modes

Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum

3 Strikes Law
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total votes: 17
Guests cannot vote

vidcapper View member profile	2nd December 2017, 07:27 AM Post #1
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	Would you support such a law for the UK, which several US states have? Obviously there would would have to be conditions, such as how serious a crime would have to be before it counted as a strike. Maybe it should be more than 3 strikes - but how many convictions would it take to convince you that a person was incapable of rehabilitation?


Silas View member profile	2nd December 2017, 07:45 AM Post #2
Queen of Soon Joined: 24 May 2007 Posts: 74,081 User: 3,474	Nope. It is an absolutely hideous law that see's people locked up for life for quite minor offences. There's no clear evidence that it does anything other than exponentially raise prison occupancy rates.


vidcapper View member profile	2nd December 2017, 07:59 AM Post #3
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(5 Silas Frøkner @ Dec 2 2017, 07:45 AM) Nope. It is an absolutely hideous law that see's people locked up for life for quite minor offences. Did you miss my proviso 'Obviously there would would have to be conditions, such as how serious a crime would have to be before it counted as a strike.' QUOTE There's no clear evidence that it does anything other than exponentially raise prison occupancy rates. You say that like it would be a bad thing?


Suedehead2 View member profile	2nd December 2017, 08:35 AM Post #4
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,668 User: 3,272	We already have the second largest prison population (per head of population) in the developed world. Why would we want to add to that buy adopting a gimmick like this? Sentencing should be decided on the facts of the case (including pasty behaviour) and not by some arbitrary rule such as this.


vidcapper View member profile	2nd December 2017, 09:02 AM Post #5
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 2 2017, 08:35 AM) We already have the second largest prison population (per head of population) in the developed world. Why would we want to add to that buy adopting a gimmick like this? Err, to protect the public from irredeemable recidivists? QUOTE Sentencing should be decided on the facts of the case (including pasty behaviour) You have something against the Cornish? QUOTE and not by some arbitrary rule such as this. But the problem is - THAT DOESN'T WORK. Criminals are obviously not deterred by the punishment courts currently hand out. This post has been edited by vidsanta: 2nd December 2017, 09:04 AM


Popchartfreak View member profile	2nd December 2017, 09:08 AM Post #6
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,821 User: 17,376	No. The USA abuses the system against black people and they get decades-long sentences for trivial offences that require just a fine. THe UK is not a paragon of virtue immune to system abuses (take a look at our police, MPs and bankers, or any number of wrongfully convicted people). Giving police an excuse to get repeat offenders put away to save them potential work down the line is not how democracy works. Innocent until proven guilty, and you get found guilty for what is is you are convicted for, not for what you may have done, may not have done, or might do. People don't commit crimes worrying about getting caught. If they did there would be no crime and we would live in a paradise on earth. They commit crimes because they think they WON'T get caught (or are prepared to take that risk, or don't care if they get caught).


vidcapper View member profile	2nd December 2017, 10:12 AM Post #7
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Dec 2 2017, 09:08 AM) No. The USA abuses the system against black people and they get decades-long sentences for trivial offences that require just a fine. Did anyone read the second line of my first post? QUOTE THe UK is not a paragon of virtue immune to system abuses (take a look at our police, MPs and bankers, or any number of wrongfully convicted people). Giving police an excuse to get repeat offenders put away to save them potential work down the line is not how democracy works. But is democracy actually working here in the first place? QUOTE Innocent until proven guilty, and you get found guilty for what is is you are convicted for, not for what you may have done, may not have done, or might do. Have I ever said otherwise?


Suedehead2 View member profile	2nd December 2017, 10:49 AM Post #8
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,668 User: 3,272	QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 2 2017, 09:02 AM) Err, to protect the public from irredeemable recidivists? You have something against the Cornish? But the problem is - THAT DOESN'T WORK. Criminals are obviously not deterred by the punishment courts currently hand out. The reoffending rate for some offences is indeed high. However, there is no evidence to support the contention that tougher sentencing makes a scrap of difference. OTOH, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that certain types of non-custodial sentence have a much better record of rehabilitating offenders.


vidcapper View member profile	2nd December 2017, 02:57 PM Post #9
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 2 2017, 10:49 AM) The reoffending rate for some offences is indeed high. However, there is no evidence to support the contention that tougher sentencing makes a scrap of difference. OTOH, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that certain types of non-custodial sentence have a much better record of rehabilitating offenders. Wouldn't that depend somewhat on how many previous convictions a felon has - if it were dozens, then rehabilitation would be unlikely.


Silas View member profile	2nd December 2017, 03:08 PM Post #10
Queen of Soon Joined: 24 May 2007 Posts: 74,081 User: 3,474	The cornerstone of a good justice system is rehabilitation. There’s so many cases of people racking up dozens of charges in their youth turning their life around. So many it’s a freaking TV/Movie cliche! There’s evidence from the US that those facing their third strike actually commit crimes that are more violent than they would have been. Kind of a “I’m going down for life if caught anyway, may as well go big” Everyone should have a chance at rehabilitation. Extending what could have been a 1-5yr sentence to 20-25yr one for earning frequent visitor miles is cruel and will lead to poor outcomes for these people that may not have reoffended had they been rehabilitated.


vidcapper View member profile	2nd December 2017, 04:04 PM Post #11
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(5 Silas Frøkner @ Dec 2 2017, 03:08 PM) There’s evidence from the US that those facing their third strike actually commit crimes that are more violent than they would have been. Kind of a “I’m going down for life if caught anyway, may as well go big” Err, how about the 'never commit a crime again' option? QUOTE Everyone should have a chance at rehabilitation. Extending what could have been a 1-5yr sentence to 20-25yr one for earning frequent visitor miles is cruel and will lead to poor outcomes for these people that may not have reoffended had they been rehabilitated. But prisoners do have a chance to rehabilitate, every time they're sent down - am I supposed to have sympathy for them if they don't take that opportunity?


Popchartfreak View member profile	2nd December 2017, 05:22 PM Post #12
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,821 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 2 2017, 10:12 AM) Did anyone read the second line of my first post? But is democracy actually working here in the first place? Have I ever said otherwise? 1. Yes I did. I made the point referring to a complete lack of trust on my part that even that scenario would get perverted by those in authority. "Why do you constantly misunderstand my posts and twist them" 2. Not if the referendum is any indication and the sort of Brexit that is being imposed on us, that there is no evidence 52% of the country voted for. 3. The whole thread is devoted to a scenario where what you have done before DOES influence what sentence you get (and which you appear to arguing in favour of). So, I'm glad to hear you don't feel that way and that you would vote "No" along with the rest of us.


vidcapper View member profile	3rd December 2017, 06:46 AM Post #13
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Dec 2 2017, 05:22 PM) 1. Yes I did. I made the point referring to a complete lack of trust on my part that even that scenario would get perverted by those in authority. "Why do you constantly misunderstand my posts and twist them" 2. Not if the referendum is any indication and the sort of Brexit that is being imposed on us, that there is no evidence 52% of the country voted for. 3. The whole thread is devoted to a scenario where what you have done before DOES influence what sentence you get (and which you appear to arguing in favour of). So, I'm glad to hear you don't feel that way and that you would vote "No" along with the rest of us. 1. Because I don't share the telepathy that others apparently have where my own posts are concerned? 2. But how could the type of Brexit ever have been determined in a binary vote, anyway? Not that that's any reason to reject the whole idea of leaving the EU, of course... 3. As long as the jury is not told this is a 3rd strike, they will make their decision on the merits of the case as presented to them, as the law intends. Only once they announced their decision would the judge reveal the defendants criminal history (if any) (). That way, any jury member who was opposed to a 3S law would not be put in the moral dilemma of having to choose to acquit a person the evidence suggested was guilty. () This is standard practice anyway, in order that a jury does not pre-judge a case based on the defendants history.


Popchartfreak View member profile	3rd December 2017, 09:36 AM Post #14
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,821 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 3 2017, 06:46 AM) 1. Because I don't share the telepathy that others apparently have where my own posts are concerned? 2. But how could the type of Brexit ever have been determined in a binary vote, anyway? Not that that's any reason to reject the whole idea of leaving the EU, of course... 3. As long as the jury is not told this is a 3rd strike, they will make their decision on the merits of the case as presented to them, as the law intends. Only once they announced their decision would the judge reveal the defendants criminal history (if any) (). That way, any jury member who was opposed to a 3S law would not be put in the moral dilemma of having to choose to acquit a person the evidence suggested was guilty. () This is standard practice anyway, in order that a jury does not pre-judge a case based on the defendants history. 1. Telepathy not required. Just reading skills and the ability to absorb information. 2. Err, polls and what people were told during the referendum and said afterwards that they felt they were voting for. This fact is one you continue to ignore because it suits your aim (which is total Hard Brexit). 3. You forget about Magistrates who dispense justice on up to 6 months imprisonment based on what they know. How do you define what is "minor"? There has to be a cut-off point in your scenario between what is or isn't "minor". So someone can do 130 burglaries? Two physical attacks? Not pay a TV licence a million times? Just the one murder followed by parking fines? The whole concept is just ridiculous. Sorry.


vidcapper View member profile	3rd December 2017, 10:29 AM Post #15
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Dec 3 2017, 09:36 AM) 2. Err, polls and what people were told during the referendum and said afterwards that they felt they were voting for. This fact is one you continue to ignore because it suits your aim (which is total Hard Brexit). 3. You forget about Magistrates who dispense justice on up to 6 months imprisonment based on what they know. How do you define what is "minor"? There has to be a cut-off point in your scenario between what is or isn't "minor". So someone can do 130 burglaries? Two physical attacks? Not pay a TV licence a million times? Just the one murder followed by parking fines? The whole concept is just ridiculous. Sorry. 2. Not quite true - it would be preferable to maintain a trading relationship with the EU, but the price might well be more than I'm prepared to accept. 3. I did say in my first post 'Obviously there would would have to be conditions, such as how serious a crime would have to be before it counted as a strike.'. If I were a politician proposing a three strikes law, then obviously I would have to set up conditions in advance - but I am not, so why do you consider it so crucial that I provide some?


Popchartfreak View member profile	3rd December 2017, 12:29 PM Post #16
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,821 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 3 2017, 10:29 AM) 3. I did say in my first post 'Obviously there would would have to be conditions, such as how serious a crime would have to be before it counted as a strike.'. If I were a politician proposing a three strikes law, then obviously I would have to set up conditions in advance - but I am not, so why do you consider it so crucial that I provide some? Don't care if you provide conditions or not. Just pointing out how complex the issue is and how simplistic your approach is. Bit like Brexit.


vidcapper View member profile	3rd December 2017, 02:22 PM Post #17
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Dec 3 2017, 12:29 PM) Don't care if you provide conditions or not. Just pointing out how complex the issue is and how simplistic your approach is. Bit like Brexit. But the Brexit question was very simple : In/Out. Sometimes I feel like I've been made a scapegoat for the 17.4m others unavailable to ask, though. This post has been edited by vidsanta: 3rd December 2017, 02:24 PM


Suedehead2 View member profile	3rd December 2017, 02:35 PM Post #18
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,668 User: 3,272	QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 3 2017, 06:46 AM) 1. Because I don't share the telepathy that others apparently have where my own posts are concerned? 2. But how could the type of Brexit ever have been determined in a binary vote, anyway? Not that that's any reason to reject the whole idea of leaving the EU, of course... 3. As long as the jury is not told this is a 3rd strike, they will make their decision on the merits of the case as presented to them, as the law intends. Only once they announced their decision would the judge reveal the defendants criminal history (if any) (). That way, any jury member who was opposed to a 3S law would not be put in the moral dilemma of having to choose to acquit a person the evidence suggested was guilty. () This is standard practice anyway, in order that a jury does not pre-judge a case based on the defendants history. It is now a lot more common for the prosecution to be allowed to refer to a defendant's past record (including arrests that have not led to charges).


Popchartfreak View member profile	3rd December 2017, 03:13 PM Post #19
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,821 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidsanta @ Dec 3 2017, 02:22 PM) But the Brexit question was very simple : In/Out. Sometimes I feel like I've been made a scapegoat for the 17.4m others unavailable to ask, though. Yes, VERY simple. Much like the Leave Politicians version of events that hasn't happened. I don't see you as scapegoat for the 17.4m by the 43m who didn't vote for it! I just see you as adopting the same stance most of those 17.4m are taking these days: I don't care if it ruins us! It's a matter of principle! They have to, otherwise they look like gullible fools taken in by errr "over-optimistic" politicians who are trying to delete all their past quotes. BTW being naive can be very charming (except when it affects the well-being of everyone else)


vidcapper View member profile	3rd December 2017, 03:51 PM Post #20
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Dec 3 2017, 02:35 PM) It is now a lot more common for the prosecution to be allowed to refer to a defendant's past record (including arrests that have not led to charges). Just 10 years when I was on jury service, it was still practically taboo.