Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws
the three-strikes laws can keep some people from having a chance to get out and reform themselves.
the three-strikes laws can mean that people who have committed minor offences receive sentences that are too long for their crimes.
the three-strikes laws does not consider minor offenses and therefore the punishment is harsher than the actual crimes committed.
the three-strikes laws does nothing to deter crime.
the three-strikes laws encourages habitual offenders to clean up their act to avoid life in prison.
the three-strikes laws has failed at every turn.
the three-strikes laws has no impact on crime
the three-strikes laws has resulted in non-violent offenders being locked up for decades.
the three-strikes laws have been effective at deterring violent crime.
the three-strikes laws have resulted in our prisons being overcrowded with non-violent offenders
the three-strikes laws helps dealing with criminals by making them fearing a real punishment .
the three-strikes laws helps deter people from committing further crimes
the three-strikes laws helps deter serious crime.
the three-strikes laws helps stop crime
the three-strikes laws is am important part of lessening crimes.
the three-strikes laws is followed by judges who knows the law and knowing that must be supported by us and our government.
the three-strikes laws is unfair, because it's too harsh on those who have committed minor crimes, therefore we should replace it by something more fair.
the three-strikes laws keep criminals off the streets and help teach them a lesson.
the three-strikes laws offer clarity, and their mandatory nature makes punishment certain, these laws prevent inconsistency in the criminal justice system
the three-strikes laws prevent rehabilitation for those who have committed minor offensives such as substance abuse treatment that can prevent future criminal acts.
the three-strikes laws put an enormous financial strain on our prisons, due to more people incarcerated for crimes that would normally require probation.
the three-strikes laws puts career criminals away.
the three-strikes laws should be abolished because it causes more paperwork and work on the parts of lawyers and counties to keep track of everything
the three-strikes laws should not be abolished because we should not keep letting people re-offend when they clearly need to either be in treatment or in jail/prison
the three-strikes laws should remain in effect because a person needs to learn on the first offense and if they get a 2nd, then there really have not learned from their mistake and deserve to go to prison.
the throoe strike law has not proved effective in reducing criminality
there are individuals that have received strikes against them for minor crimes or things done as teens.   there is no magic number in three.  sentences should depend on the type and severity of crimes.
there are times when it makes sense for people to get another chance
there are too many unknowns and have to be taken case by case