Topic: We should abolish the three-strikes laws
the three-strike law should not be enforced, instead the offender should be given the full sentence the first time it is committed to detour others from committing the same crime.
the three-strike law should remain in effect as it is a deterrent to keep people for offending over and over.
the three-strike laws give people a chance to change their ways, and if they fail to do so they rightfully deserve to be punished to the fullest degree then.
the three-strike laws is silly because someone they apply to should already have been punished to the highest degree.
The three-strikes law  should be abolished and the punishment should always fit the crime so if the third crime is petty then they should have a minimal sentence or fine rather than prison terms.
the three-strikes law can have lasting consequences for an individual where there are cases involving justice miscarriages.
the three-strikes law costs tax payers too much money.
the three-strikes law deters criminals from continued criminal action and adheres to habitual offenders that would otherwise continue their criminal acts.
the three-strikes law does not allow for the concept of redemption and that people can become a better person.
The three-strikes law does not give an offender the chance to ever reform and become a functional member of society.
the three-strikes law does not work as an effective deterrent of major crimes.
The three-strikes law gives no room for mitigating factors to be considered, making our justice system a rigid one that does not allow for true justice.
The three-strikes law gives victims peace of mind that the person who perpetuated a crime against them won't one day return and harm them again.
the three-strikes law has been extremely effective in reducing crime in states that have adopted the measure.
the three-strikes law has dramatically reduced the amount of repeat crimes in this country and should be kept as is.
the three-strikes law has failed in what it set out to accomplish and therefore should be abolished.  crime has not lessened, instead we now have fuller prisons.
the three-strikes law has failed to do what it was intended to.  there is still just as much crime, just as many repeat offenders.
the three-strikes law has limited the amount of smaller crimes like robbery so it has been effective and should remain.
the three-strikes law has prevented numerous offenses by imprisoning repeat offenders and should be kept as is
the three-strikes law has resulted in overcrowded prisons
the three-strikes law includes too many lower level offenses which causes an innacurrate portrayal of the danger the individual poses to the community.
The three-strikes law is a deterrent against crime.
the three-strikes law is a powerful deterrent that acts as a fixed punishment for people not to develop a life of crime as they are always aware of the power of the law and the fixed penalty.
the three-strikes law is effective at deterring many petty criminals from continuing on their path and should be allowed to stay on the books.
the three-strikes law is effective in reducing repeat crimes.