Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws

Argument: the the three-strikes laws is unfair and inhuman.

Argument: the three strike law is too strict for some offenders

Argument: the three strikes law does not prevent crime & is often to tough a sentence for not so dangerous crimes

Argument: the three strikes law encourages family and friends to get involved in preventing their children from committing crimes since they now know the punishment will be much higher.

Argument: the three strikes law holds criminals accountable for their actions. a lot of criminals begin with small crimes and escalate and we are preventing the escalation.

Argument: the three strikes law is unfairly punishing petty criminals with non-violent histories

Argument: the three strikes law will scare a felon into not committing a second, or third, offense, to avoid a life sentence.

Argument: the three strikes laws helps keep dangerous criminal elements from doing more harm in society

Argument: the three-stikes laws are unfair since a minor crime would be treated the same as a major crime.  prisons are too full as it is now.

Argument: the three-strikes law does not work as an effective deterrent of major crimes.

Argument: the three-strikes law gives no room for mitigating factors to be considered, making our justice system a rigid one that does not allow for true justice.

Argument: the three-strikes law gives victims peace of mind that the person who perpetuated a crime against them won't one day return and harm them again.

Argument: the three-strikes law has failed to do what it was intended to.  there is still just as much crime, just as many repeat offenders.

Argument: the three-strikes law has prevented numerous offenses by imprisoning repeat offenders and should be kept as is

Argument: the three-strikes law includes too many lower level offenses which causes an innacurrate portrayal of the danger the individual poses to the community.

Argument: the three-strikes law is unfair to those individuals who did not commit a heinous crime.

Argument: the three-strikes law removes repeat offenders from society and stops them from committing further crimes against the population.

Argument: the three-strikes law should be abolished because each offense committed should be judged on its own severity and punished accordingly.

Argument: the three-strikes laws are totally a mess. they do not accurately criminalize the offender for the gravity of his offense

Argument: the three-strikes laws are unfair to those people who commit petty crimes.

Argument: the three-strikes laws does not consider minor offenses and therefore the punishment is harsher than the actual crimes committed.

Argument: the three-strikes laws helps stop crime

Argument: the three-strikes laws is am important part of lessening crimes.

Argument: the three-strikes laws keep criminals off the streets and help teach them a lesson.

Argument: the three-strikes laws put an enormous financial strain on our prisons, due to more people incarcerated for crimes that would normally require probation.

Argument: the three-strikes laws puts career criminals away.