Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws

Argument: three strike laws count insignificant crimes like drug use, and result in unfair jail time sentences.

Argument: three strike laws do not take into account the passage of time and lessons learned from previous and possibly unrelated offenses.  automatic three strikes are unfair

Argument: three strike laws keep people who've killed a lot off the street.

Argument: three strikes laws are expensive because they increase how long people are incarcerated which must be paid for by tax payers.

Argument: three strikes laws are unnecessary because states already have ways of punishing recidivism more harshly.

Argument: three strikes laws gives people more chances to straight their act

Argument: three strikes laws have not decreased the number of crimes being committed, so they have no purpose.

Argument: three strikes laws lead to more people being put in jail which ends up being a burden on tax-payers and federal funding.

Argument: three strikes laws lead to prison over-population since more offenders are put away for a longer time. this leads to worse prison conditions and more violence in prisons.

Argument: three strikes laws often punish those who have been pushed into crime by their socioeconomic background, which is unjust.

Argument: three strikes laws put people in jail for long periods despite committing only minor offenses.

Argument: three-strike laws are too harsh when the felonies are for non violent crimes such as prostitution and tax fraud.

Argument: three-strike laws keep repeat offenders from being let out after a very short prison term.  it will prevent many serious crimes.

Argument: three-strike laws lead to expensive trials. three-strike offenders will demand a court trial rather than accept a plea bargain (which costs a fraction of the price of a full-blown trial).

Argument: three-strike laws should be abolished because employers abuse the legislation

Argument: three-strikes laws can help keep the violent and unruly off of the streets of regular society.

Argument: three-strikes laws can lead to extreme punishments that don't fit the crime

Argument: three-strikes laws clog the court systems.  defendants will take their cases to trial, rather than accept a plea bargain, in an attempt to avoid a life sentence.

Argument: three-strikes laws don't consider the proportionality of the crimes committed and would offer disproportionate punishment to people who commit petty crimes.

Argument: three-strikes laws have lowered crime rates in many areas

Argument: three-strikes laws help people realize that what they did was wrong and change their ways before they end up in jail for life.

Argument: three-strikes laws increase taxpayer costs by increasing the number of prisoners imprisoned for life, a very costly expense.

Argument: three-strikes laws increase the likelihood that twice-convicted felons would resist arrest violently, leading to increased violence against police officers, as well as potential harm to bystanders.

Argument: three-strikes laws keep the worst of the worst criminals off the streets