Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws
the three-strikes law is good at keeping criminals off of the streets
The three-strikes law is important to encourage habitual offenders to seek help rather than continue on with their violent behavior.
the three-strikes law is inequitable and targets men of color.
the three-strikes law is unfair to  those criminals who are trying to reform themselves.
the three-strikes law is unfair to those individuals who did not commit a heinous crime.
the three-strikes law is unfair to those whose crimes are minimal verses those whose crimes are very bad.
the three-strikes law is unfair, and in some cases, only 1 strike should be enough if the crime is bad enough.
the three-strikes law keeps people from becoming repeat offenders because they realize that their punishment will be severe if they don't change their ways.
The three-strikes law makes judicial discretion - one of the hallmarks of our justice system - superfluous.
the three-strikes law means that someone who goes off the rails when young will be in prison for life. it could be that when older they could have seen they were wrong and had a meaningful life.
the three-strikes law promotes less crime because people know they will really be in trouble after 3.
the three-strikes law removes repeat offenders from society and stops them from committing further crimes against the population.
the three-strikes law serves as an effective deterrent and should not be abolished.
the three-strikes law serves to discourage people from committing crimes.
the three-strikes law should be abolished because each offense committed should be judged on its own severity and punished accordingly.
the three-strikes law should be abolished because it is not fair to use this criteria over like a 50-60 year period, but should have more definition to make the law more fair.
the three-strikes law should be abolished because it's not right for someone to be sentenced to life just because they've made three mistakes, or committed three felonies.
the three-strikes law should be abolished. each convicted crime should be punished individually.  it isn't right to judge a person solely on their criminal history.
the three-strikes law should remain intact for  crimes against other people
the three-strikes law shouldn't be abolished because by having the law it keeps repeat offenders in prisons and gets them off of the streets.
the three-strikes law works just the way it should and puts away those that deserve to do time for repeat offenses
the three-strikes law works to discourage crime, abolishing it would lead to an immediate increase in crimes.
the three-strikes laws aid in taking dangerous and repeat criminals that have not found success in optionsprovided to them to alter their lives for the better.
the three-strikes laws are totally a mess. they do not accurately criminalize the offender for the gravity of his offense
the three-strikes laws are unfair to those people who commit petty crimes.
the three-strikes laws avoid getting prisons full for small offence.
the three-strikes laws can be a deterent for criminals.