Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws
three-strikes laws don't consider the proportionality of the crimes committed and would offer disproportionate punishment to people who commit petty crimes.
three-strikes laws don't set out what they intended to do, lower prison populations and crime rates, they need to be abolished
three-strikes laws have been proven to lower crime rates, since they act as an excellent deterrent to unlawful behaviour across the spectrum.
three-strikes laws have lowered crime rates in many areas
three-strikes laws have proven to be effective in reducing crime
three-strikes laws have the potential to increase violence against law enforcement officers facing criminals who are more likeyto resist arrest if facing a mandatory life sentence
three-strikes laws help people realize that what they did was wrong and change their ways before they end up in jail for life.
Three-strikes laws increase overcrowding in prisons by incarcerating, for life, three-strike offenders.
Three-strikes laws increase taxpayer costs by increasing the number of prisoners imprisoned for life, a very costly expense.
Three-strikes laws increase the likelihood that twice-convicted felons would resist arrest violently, leading to increased violence against police officers, as well as potential harm to bystanders.
three-strikes laws keep the worst of the worst criminals off the streets
three-strikes laws lead to overcrowded prisons which simply costs too much money to house inmates for life after committing three crimes.
three-strikes laws lead to overcrowding in prisons, as less serious offences become punishable by incarceration.
three-strikes laws makes criminals less likely to reoffend.
three-strikes laws my wrongfully imprison someone whose crime wasn't minor and absolutely not worth a life sentence.
three-strikes laws often lead to harsh punishments that do not fit their crimes
three-strikes laws overtax the prison system but overloading them with non-violent criminals who could be otherwise rehabilitated.
Three-strikes laws promote safety by keeping habitual offenders in jail and off the streets.
three-strikes laws reduce recidivism rates.
Three-strikes laws reduce the rate of crime in a community.
three-strikes laws remove violent, repeat offenders from the public and reduces crime rates in areas that adopt such laws.
three-strikes laws should be allowed to continue as its a important part of the justice system and it allows people to be able to learn from their lessons.
three-strikes laws should not be abolished because they are effective at lowering the overall crime rate.
three-strikes punishes repeat offenders
to choose to commit the same offence three times shows a lack of responsibility and punishment should be a deterrent
too much punishment can result mental problem.
violent offenders that do not change their lives should be recipients of the three strikes law.
we are all human-beings and thus, capable of causing torts to people without willing it. three-strikes laws is the door to spare us from the harsh of the criminal justice and give us another try to behave well.