Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
I haven't had time to read the stuff that has been sent to me about the various propositions on the ballot. Anyone have opinions on these? Especially Prop 66. In general, I am against 3 strikes your out unless at least one of the crimes is a violent crime like murder or rape. I am not for 3 strikes for nonviolent drug offenses. Wondering how others are planning on voting on these.
|
I'm no californicator, but the 3-strikes thingy caught my eye in the LA Times last week.
While (as you know) I don't have much sympathy for criminals, particularly recidivist criminals, I do have sympathy for taxpayers. My understanding is that the law-and-order crowd is opposed to rolling back 3 strikes, but its their unions doing the booing and it makes it sound like its for employment/personal economic reasons. My understanding of the law is that if the 2nd (or higher) strike is violent, the sentence is doubled and if the 3rd (or higher) strike is violent, yur outta there.
Which sounds good to me. Besides true-rapists, pedophiles and that whole crowd, the only people I think society needs to ensure are kept in jail for life, with no exceptions by a soft judge or jury commission, are violent criminals (particularly those who use a weapon). Basically, if you get caught buying or selling crack twice, and ya pull the trigger once thereafter, I'm ready to give up on ya. The simple fact is, even in the most violent neighborhoods, there aren't that many people willing to pull a trigger as a crime. Its the part of the gene pool that needs to be suppressed most.
Sadly, it has pitted Polly Klaas father (in favor of current law) against her 80+ grandfather (against). The father indicated he's willing to disown dad over it.
Hello
