Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws
if someone hasn't learned by the first two chances then they aren't going to stop committing crimes. it makes more sense to lock them away than to let them keep committing crimes against the population.
if someone is habitually offending, they deserve to be punished on the harshest level.
if the person has a history of criminality then they should be punished more heavily.
if the third crime is minor, the perpetrator is going to serve an out of proportion sentence.
if there are 3 minor offenses there is no need to overly punish someone.
if there wasn’t a three strikes law people could be put away for life the first time.
if these laws no longer exist petty criminals will have way less incentive to clean up their act.
if we abolish the three-strikes laws then the prisons will continue to be like a revolving door with offenders continuing on the same line.
if we could only make 3 mistakes in our lives, we would all be damned. this law allows no room for maneuver or nuance for those that have been predisposed to a life of crime and have the capability to reform
if we do not have three-strikes laws, career criminals will keep slipping through the cracks making our world more dangerous.
if we got rid of three-strikes laws, there would be little deterrent for career criminals.
if you don't learn after three strikes your out.
it causes people to receive disproportionately high sentences for petty crimes
it could lead to a very large prison population which can be very expensive for the state.
it has been shown that those on two strikes are much less likely to commit a further offence for fear of incarceration.
it is a complete waste of resource and prison space to imprison everyone for 25 years that commits 3 misdemeanors. there are better routes to take that cost less and enable reform of the criminal
it is a harsh penalty for those that committ non violent crimes.
it is a strong message of deterrent to repeat offenders
it is necessary to remove those from society who already committed two crimes and still commit a third knowing what will happen to them
it is not always an effective deterrent to crime and often leads to prison overpopulation.
it is only fair to believe that if a person carries out a serious crime three times they have no hope of redemption.
it is too expensive to jail people for minor crimes
it is unfair that someone should be jailed for a minor crime
it is unfair to convict someone for a third crime that isn’t dependent of the crime’s magnitude
it is unjust and discriminates against minorities
it keeps habitual offenders in prison and increases safety of citizens.
it provides justice to the victims and gives them a sense of security
it sends a message that if you are going to do too many things wrong you will pay the price
it should not be abolished as it sets a good platform for people to see and for criminals to realize that costs of their actions hence it will certainly decrease crime
it should not be abolished.  it's a good deterrant that should see the potential criminal think twice about his or her actions.