Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws
it would be wrong to abolish the three-stikes laws because previous behavior is an indicator of future behavior. if the same person commits the same crime three times, it means they just won't stop.
its a great crime deterrent,  people dont feel secure committing crimes knowing they will be locked up for life.
its a great crime deterrent, it scares people.
it's a great deterrant.  even if the third crime is minor, they're going down.
its asinine for people to spend life in jail for minor offenses committed while they were young.
it's straightforward so the criminal know whatever type of crime they commit, that third one is sending them down so that's their decision whether to commit the crime or not.
just because someone is a habitual offender doesn't mean they deserve a harsh punishment. there are different situations.
keeping the three strikes will prevent many people from ever committing a crime
many people could be imprisoned with harsh sentences for minor offenses
many people could pay long sentences for nonviolent crimes
minorities are more likely to be prosecuted and therefore have prior offences so this is unfairly applied
Most people who commit violent crimes are acting impulsively, without thought to the consequences of their actions. Thus, three strikes laws won't deter most violent crimes.
no one should be put away for  a long time for small crimes
not all crimes are equal and cannot be punished equally
not everyone can be reformed.  some people are a danger to society, and two failed attempts at reform is far more than they deserve.
offenders should not be given the chance to repeat such crimes that fall under the 3 strikes laws in order to get the sentence they deserved in the first place.
one effect of mandatory sentencing, and of three-strikes laws in particular, is the rapid growth of the prison population
One effect of three-strikes laws in particular, is the rapid growth of the prison population, all of this comes at a very high cost to the taxpayer
people are aware that they can get away with two offences
people are in jail for life over small offenses they commit as young people, its totally unfair and costs tax payers more than it needs to.
people change and maybe by the third time they realize they messed up.
people deserve to get another chance when they do something wrong
people have had two chances to reform before their third strike
people mess up and the 3 strike rule is wrong.
people should be given the opportunity to learn from their mistakes before they are punished
people should be judged on their crimes individually
people that keep committing crimes should be put away for the benefit of all
people who commit crimes over and over need to be locked up
people who have three minor offences are unfairly punished.
prisoners could be serving a sentence more harsh than the crime they have commited
rather than the three-strikes laws rehabilitative services should be part of a program upon release from prison after the first offense.
Recidivism rates are highly unlikely to go down after a third crime; it is therefore just to remove this person from society.