Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws
a criminal that offends two times is likely to keep committing crimes so the three strikes law would keep them out of the public earlier for the better
a criminal will think twice about committing a crime knowing that the next crime he commits might mean life imprisonment.
a three-strikes system does not allow for people to be treated fairly as individuals and instead is used as a "one-size-fits-all" control method for minority populations.
abolishing the three strikes law would save money
abolishing the three strikes will prevent minor crimes from being punished the same as worse ones
abolishing the three-strikes laws is mandatory because is not supporting evidence and not following the evidences in such a cases is abstract and not part of our western society.
after the third time, it can be assumed that the person will not change and continue in the same behavior.
all crimes are not equal with thee strikes laws murder is the same as jay walking. each crime should include a number of factors and not just an arbitrary number.
an overhaul is due.  this is an unfair system and has outlived it's usefullness.
anyone who can't obey the law should be removed from society
As people age they tend to commit less crimes, keeping individuals in jail for life only because of three-strikes laws is a waste of money and doesn't protect society.
at each recidivism we must increase the punishment, so we will avoid so many violent crimes
by keeping the three-stikes laws we can stop much of the repeat offending.
crimials shouldn't need three strikes before they pay for their crimes
criminals are bound to repeat themselves, and with increasing risk. the three strikes law would punish those criminals accordingly.
criminals may be deterred from committing further crime if they know that they will be put in prison for life if they commit further criminal acts.
criminals need to realize their crime will not be tolerated and they will have to pay the price.
criminals should be given a chance to reform, even if they committed the same crime multiple times.
criminals should be given only so many chances. multiple offenses prove they will not change and should be punished accordingly.
criminals should have a chance to go straight, even if they've committed the same crime multiple times.
criminals shouldn't get extra chances when committing crimes anyway, so the three-strikes law is not necessary.
criminals will always be criminals so why abolish the three strikes rule
due to most hate crimes being spur of the moment, the three strikes laws won’t deter crime like they were intended to.
each offence should be taken on merit, it is unfair to use past offences to determine the punishment for a current offence, the current punishment should only reflect the current crime
everybody deserves a change to change and make up for their mistakes.
habitual offenders of serious offenses should not get three chances.
how many times should we allow someone to flout the laws that protect us and not say enough is enough? 3 chances is enough.