Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws
the person who repeating violent crimes the punishment must be maximise and for that reason we support the three-strikes law.
the problem with this kind of law is that without a fair trial they could imprison innocent people
the public needs protecting against violent criminals.
the simple reason for abolish the three-strikes laws is because is harmful for felony accused prisoners and is doubtful in reality and fairness.
the the three-strikes laws is unfair and inhuman.
the three strike law could potentially cause young people who commit crime ending up spending their whole lives in jail, when they could have been rehabilitated.
the three strike law deters crime of repeat offenders.
the three strike law establishes a sentence and those who commit crimes can make a choice if they want to abide by it or not
the three strike law is reasonable and gives fair warning to those committing crimes repeatedly
the three strike law is too strict for some offenders
the three strike law prohibits reform of offenders.
the three strikes law can lead to a long sentence for minor crimes.
the three strikes law deters repeat offenders from repeating their crimes because the fourth time, they will be punished more severely,
the three strikes law does a great deal to inhibit the urge to commit criminal behaviors.
the three strikes law does not prevent crime & is often to tough a sentence for not so dangerous crimes
the three strikes law does nothing to prohibit criminal behavior.
the three strikes law doesn't do anything to prevent or deter major crimes from occurring.
The three strikes law encourages family and friends to get involved in preventing their children from committing crimes since they now know the punishment will be much higher.
the three strikes law holds criminals accountable for their actions. a lot of criminals begin with small crimes and escalate and we are preventing the escalation.
the three strikes law is a deterrent for many repeat offenders and they know if they get caught committing a crime after the third time, their punishment is a lot harsher.
the three strikes law is a waste of time and money, and does not serve as an effective deterrent against major crimes.
The three strikes law is an effective deterrent to all but the most hardened criminals and should be maintained to stop the development of career criminals especially amongst the youth.
the three strikes law is an old concept. it doesn't really prevent people from committing  violence, especially because many acts of violence are not premeditated.
the three strikes law is barbaric and not applied fairly and should be banned. a persons life should not hang in the balance f=because they have erred three times. people change over time.
the three strikes law is filling our prisons with people who have not commited serious crimes.
the three strikes law is important because it could act as a deterrent to a criminal with prior convictions.
the three strikes law is not managed effectively and is unfair, targeting certain social classes