i agree that 160 is way too much....perhaps 90 would be fine.

Some states, such as Alabama, have in place a way where non-violent offenders can appeal the 3strikes law, due to over crowding of the system.

__________________

Our justice system is certainly flawed, but I think that these career criminals that just go on committing crime, after crime should be segregated from society. Too many repeat offenders keep getting out of prison and go on to commit progressively more serious crimes. Some people just do not deserve to walk among decent citizens

GP you have to realize also that under the 3 strike law say you committed a crime as a juvenile age 16 , then did not do any more until say 20 for shop lifting a pair of socks, then you don't get into anymore trouble till your 45 and your in a store that your friend steals a 6 pack of beer just because you had a 13 inch knife in your pocket during the thief your sentenced under the 3 strikes law. <True story there.> Now tell me if thats a career criminal and should be segregated from society.

__________________

I think if 3 Strikes were to work effectively, some kind of across the board parameters need to be set for it. You can't just take case after case and say well this is fair and this isn’t fair arbitrarily.

I think a good starting point would be a third violent felony conviction. But that would mean that the two prior to that one might not be violent in nature. Say I stole a car, next I wrote some bad checks, and then thirdly I would need to perpetrate a violent crime on another in some shape or form, either with a weapon or without. That would make more sense to me however; the argument would still be that you are waiting for the violent felony to occur instead of taking any steps to prevent it.

__________________
"Thats it then, they will go on double, secret, probation..."

The other day I was discussing this case with a lawyer friend. We both agreed that most states will show leniency towards initial offences before finally handing out the huge ones. Once a person gets away with something the first time, they believe they have some kind of immunity to further punishment. This is not always the case, as you can have a person who just made a major one-time wrong choice. I think in this case, what I keep coming back to is the 11 previous incidents. You can only let a person get away with something so many times before they start believing they're exempt. It's like letting your child do whatever they please without discipline, and then deciding when they're 17, you're going to lay down ground rules. By that time, they don't believe the rules apply to them, and are not going to respond with much cooperation or seriousness. I am not stating Mr. Twyman was justified in anyway, I am just not sure why somebody didn't lay down the law sooner.

In viewing this case, I honestly believe that Mr. Twyman didn’t fully understand that he would be held accountable for his crimes in a US court of law and perhaps he was under the impression he would be deported back to Canada for sentencing. That is what he wants now obviously but it won’t happen as his victims were all US citizens and he owes restitutions. I’m having a hard time feeling a tremendous amount of sympathy for him and I’m still waiting to hear Canada make any plea for the return of their model citizen. If his punishment was so terribly outrageous, then they should have no problem taking him back so they can pay for his incarceration and then release him to go live somewhere there with his passport revoked. I don’t see it happening.

__________________
"Thats it then, they will go on double, secret, probation..."

One point rarely made is the rights of the taxpayors. It costs alot to lock people up forever, and causes additional costly problems for thier families.

Would some who pays taxes really be willing to write the check for every offender who gets three strikes. Would people in hard times be willing to give up social benifits to have every 3 strikes your out offender locked up.

I tired of having the value of the dollar destroyed by uncontrolled spending and borrowing.
John

Well aren’t we doing that now? Every offender who meets the 3 strikes criteria is sentenced to life in prison unless he or she chooses to take the case to be heard by a court of appeals and fights it in some respect.

It’s very costly to lock someone up for the rest of their life. That burden primarily falls upon the state and its tax payers. Money that could be going into much more productive ventures. Not to say that it would, but at least it would be accessible on some level before being dumped into housing incarcerated citizens.

However, none of us want violent felons at large on our city streets. Most would agree that they have lost the privilege (either temporarily or not) of living amongst us in a free society. So what do we do about this? The options are limited. We can abolish 3 Strikes in its current form or modify it. I think a violent 3rd felony is a rational approach but some may not agree. This would be irregardless of the first two felonies. To me at least, it demonstrates a pattern of behavior and a failure to understand the implications of one's actions or the consequences there of.

__________________
"Thats it then, they will go on double, secret, probation..."

Wolfie had a good point here, however, at 16, the crime would be under the juvenile system, so that wouldn't qualify under the current 3-strikes law.

There is a move to reform the 3 strikes laws throughout the U.S. to categorize "qualifying offenses" so that minor felonies won't be included in the sentencing structures.j

Sadly, in California, which has the worst application of 3-strikes, the PUBLIC defeated the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2008. Yes, the VOTERS said NO CHANGES to the law at a rate of 54% voting to KEEP the old law intact. It was not the government, but the citizens who spoke loudly that they were willing to bear the $1 billion dollars per year to imprison repeat offenders regardless of what their third crime was.