- NEW!
Help answer this question below.
Should health be considered when sentencing criminals?
by HoboJoe on October 13th, 2011
| 2 people like this
Is the"Crime" Here, Really Only a "Thought" Crime. Ultimately Prior Restraint (See Below)?
by mdGreg on December 16th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Is there really a victimless crime?
by HoboJoe on October 30th, 2011
| 4 people like this
20 years for insulting Thai royal family?Talk about suppression of freedom of expression!
by mike_70 on November 27th, 2011
| 2 people like this
Have you ever been guilty of aiding and abetting a fugitive?
by Weylon on December 7th, 2011
| 2 people like this
You're reading Did the three strikes law adopted by several states bring a halt to crime waves that swept U.S cities in the eighties?
Comments
Even so, the three strikes law has taken many violent felons off the street leaving two strikers shaking in their boots!
by -O-uknow on February 8th, 2010
Well, that's highly debatable. The death penalty was instituted with
intent to deter murder--that hasn't stopped people from killing.
by buttman on February 9th, 2010
I disagree. The death penalty was instituted as appropriate punishment to fit the crime. Not to scare those who have committed none. That happens by default and is not meant to deter which is a flawed perception by those who oppose it.
by -O-uknow on February 9th, 2010
No, that's not a "flawed perception." Death penalty [laws] falsely
convince the public that the "government has taken efective measures
to combat crime, and that each execution [deters] a certain number of murders." Don't unscrupulous murderers deserve to die? I don't know--they probably do. In general, as you pointed out, the punishment should fit the crime, but in civilized society we reject
the "eye for an eye" principle of literally doing to criminals what
they do to their victims. We don't rape a criminal because he raped
someone. We don't burn down the house of an arsenist as a form of a
punishment. Moreover, a study published in the Stanford Law Review
documents 350 capital convictions in this century, in which it was
later proven that the convict hadn't committed the crime. Of those, 25 convicts were executed while others spent decades of their lives in prison. Based to your premise, it is assumed that the death penalty is reserved for those who committed the most heinous crimes, but in reality, only a small percentage of death-sentenced
inmates were convicted of unusually vicious crimes. The vast majority of individuals facing execution were convicted of crimes
that are indistinguishable from crimes committed by others who are
serving prison sentences, crimes such as murder committed in the course of an armed robbery. The only distinguishing factors seem to be race and poverty. In fact, some observers have pointed out that
the term "capital punishment" is ironic because "only those without capital get the punishment."
by buttman on February 9th, 2010
The inconsistencies you point out is an argument for the overhaul of death penalty sentencing. Not its elimination.
by -O-uknow on February 10th, 2010