Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws
huge mandatory sentences for three minor offenses make neither economic or judicial sense. the huge  cost of incarceration is unjustified. judicially the sentence should fit the crime and not be draconian.
i believe the three-strikes law is too harsh.   these people may have been wrongly convicted of a felony or just hang out with the wrong people.   they should be given a chance to be a better citizen.
i don't  think that we should abolish the three-strikes laws for our integrity
i think it works. after 2 offences the fear of prison will stop another one
i think that we should abolish the three-strikes laws for humanity
i think the costs of long term incarcerations  would be very costly.
if a person commits even one felony that is a serious thing.   for someone to  commit a second and a third it shows they are not safe in our communities.   the three-strikes law should not be abolished.
if a person commits the same offence three times then they must be subject to the three-strikes law as they are obviously not being rehabilitated and therefore should face a long jail term.
if a person commits three low level crimes such as shop lifting it is unfair that they will then be subject to a long prison sentence due to the three-strikes law.
if a person has been arrested for three crimes they have not learned from their mistakes but see being a criminal as a lifestyle.   let's put those people behind bars and prevent more crimes.
if a person has been convicted three times, they clearly cannot learn their lesson and should be separated from the rest of society to keep us safe.
if a person has served time for a  previous offense it should not be taken in account with new sentencing.
if a person is given two chances to stop committing crimes and they don't then they never will. by the third time they had enough chances and it's time to lock them away for good for the sake of society.
if limited to violent crime, three-strikes laws serve the necessary function of keeping dangerous individuals out of society.
if people are habitually re-offending then they need a punishment that will stop them. a mandatory prison sentence is the minimum they should have as a punishment.
if people do not learn from their mistakes and corrections then they are unfit to live among society.
if people haven't stopped committing major crimes by their third go around, they really shouldn't be allowed back on the streets. this law is potentially saving innocent lives.
if people keep repeating the same offenses and won't change their ways, they deserve to be incarcerated permanently.
if people make two errors the third should not mean automatic life
if someone already has two strikes and hasn't figured out how to straighten up and clean up their act, then the thirds strike should be their last chance because obviously they have learned nothing.
if someone commits three serious crimes then they have proven that they cannot be trusted and will likely go on to break the lay repeatedly.