Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws
three-strike laws seriously limit the ability of offenders to be rehabilitated in society by giving them increasingly severe sentences that ultimate result in lifetime incarceration.
three-strike laws should be abolished as it negatively impact minorities and people of color who are more likely to commit crime due to poverty issues.
three-strike laws should be abolished because employers abuse the legislation
three-strike laws should not be abolished because they enable employers to act rapidly to dismiss staff who act inappropriately
three-strike offenders are habitual criminals and should be treated as such
three-strikes does not take in to account mitigating circumstances
three-strikes law is a primary obligation of the criminal justice system to establish clear and certain penalties for crime
three-strikes laws act as a very effective deterrent to crime, and this zero tolerance approach has been been responsible for making cities far safer.
three-strikes laws are a major reason for overcrowding in our prison system.
Three-strikes laws are a necessary tool to get the most violent offenders off the streets and keep them from harming more people.
three-strikes laws are an example of institutional racism, as they are disproportionately applied to minority offenders for petty crimes.
three-strikes laws are effective in deterring repeat offenses and should not be abandoned.
Three-strikes laws are incredibly racist.
three-strikes laws are ineffective in reducing the recidivism rate.
three-strikes laws are inherently flawed as per their definition, people are judged seriously at their third strike. thus even if the first strike is a serious strike, bad person could go scot-free.
three-strikes laws are not well designed for our criminal justice. any crime is crime even minor one. any offender should face the justice
three-strikes laws are overly draconian, and result in overcrowded prisons and judicial miscarriages.
three-strikes laws are overly harsh and do not take nuance into account.
three-strikes laws are too harsh and lack the nuance needed to truly ensure the punishment fits the crime.
Three-strikes laws are too harsh. Many people who have committed non-violent felonies - and in some cases, misdemeanors - have been given mandatory life sentences.
three-strikes laws avoid putting non-serious crime offenders in jails
three-strikes laws can act as a deterrent for serial criminal behavior.
three-strikes laws can disproportionally penalise minor offenders and addicts, causing overcrowding in prisons some of these people need help, not draconian punishment.
three-strikes laws can help keep the violent and unruly off of the streets of regular society.
three-strikes laws can lead to extreme punishments that don't fit the crime
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.
three-strikes laws criminals who can't be rehabilitated off the streets.