At some point, yes. They are aren't playing by society's rules (committing three felonies) and should be removed. If you have two felonies, perhaps don't rob trains?
Most three strike laws have to do with violent crime though.
Most three strike laws have to do with violent crime though.
25+ years is way out of proportion for the offense. Long sentences as a form of deterrence are not as effective as things like the likelihood of getting caught. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/five-things-about-d...
Incarceration without rehabilitation does not solve the underlying problems and leads to recidivism.
Ruining someone's life over a few Amazon packages makes no sense, ethically or financially.
By unjustly appropriating the fruits of other people's labor, thieves make it harder for all honest citizens to support themselves and their families financially. Of course they are a danger to society, and only someone in a position of extreme financial privilege could possibly think otherwise.
Heh really? Have you read Les Miserables? If one is hungry, go ask and SOMEONE will give you a loaf of bread (I cannot count the amount of times someone approach me/the queue in a food court of a mall asking for money and I've bought them some nice soup - and they actually sat down and ate it).
Who gives anyone the right to steal something I purchased, and I am expecting it for personal or business purpose? How would you feel if I come to your house every day and steal something - whatever I want and sell it on eBay?
Yes you are annoying :)
Essentially, the life of a robber is immeasurably more valuable than your amazon box, so unless they are a threat to human lives, you do not kill them to defend property. Arresting them is fine, but killing because of stealing is a nono.
Other thing would been if the robbers were armed and thus dangerous to the conductor and the like, in those cases, lethal action may be justifiable as a form of self defense.
It's been argued[0] that most of us don't commit three felonies in a lifetime, but three felonies a day.
While that may be somewhat hyperbolic, it also points up something important about our society. If I were you, I wouldn't be so excited about sticking "three time losers" in prison for decades. It could be you -- for what you did yesterday.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a...
But they do protect the public.
We sit there and put folks in jail or prison for an offense, where we might hold them in solitary for months - and if they aren't, they are in a system where people *assume' they are going to get raped by another inmate (it is a common joke, after all).
And then we let them out, put them on probation with a bunch of fees that need paid, a record that makes it difficult to find legal work - especially the sort that will pay bills plus probation - and might exclude them from public housing. And when I say exclude, I mean they might not be able to stay with family for a week if their family lives in public housing.
Harsh penalties do not protect the public. Harsh penalties are the result of a system meant to extract misery, sometimes for fairly minor expenses. If we (Americans) cared about protecting the public, we'd house people, feed them, make it so crimes of desperation are fewer. We'd treat folks well in prison, treat pre-trial folks like they are innocent, and focus on integrating folks into society in ways that few would mind a felon for a neighbor.
I'd like to see you, with a conviction for a nonviolent drug crime and no college degree or tech experience, try to get a job and provide for a family.
The "rules" of the US are intensely stacked against poor people while allowing the wealthy to almost fail upward.
It wouldn’t be that hard to stop emoloyers from asking if you served time and do background checks for this. In theory, you did your time, you’ve paid your debt to society. I feel like, at leastbin the US, you’re pretty much screwed if you were ever convicted of anything.
It would not be hard to find a job in construction even with a drug offense and no degree.
It is kind of arbitrary, there's nothing so magical about it. Two or four would be just as good or at least not a whole lot worse; one seems overly harsh, and five seems overly lenient. Social policy is not an exact science, and we make these decisions democratically; most people seem to have a sense that people should get a few chances, but there should be a point at which they get the book thrown at them. Better to try and draw the line in a place that makes sense, and tweak it if necessary, than to be paralysed by indecision because you can't decide exactly where the line should be.
No. I don’t have a preference for the specific number.
I am asking by which reasoning we decided on three. If it is just “baseball” then I think we can do better.
In other words do we have a framework for deciding on additional punishment for repeat offense?
If you think we can do better then what's your concrete proposal for doing better. 2? 4? Paying a philosophy department to crank out papers until we spot one we like?
I am not asking for answers from philosophers. I am asking for a description of the reasoning behind the existing three strikes policies.
A philosophy is just a framework of thinking. It doesn’t have to be created by intellectuals.
I'm surprised by your second line because it seems like you're the one philosophizing. I bet nobody has ever written down a "reason" for three strike policies for criminals/sentencing/etc. It just seems like a reasonable number, and we have the baseball metaphor to back it up.
How are we supposed to answer your question if you're not interested in philosophizing?
“Seems reasonable” and “baseball” aren’t compelling reasons for harsher punishment.
Do you think recidivism should ever result in harsher punishments? If so, do you think this should be codified in sentencing policy?
These questions leave aside the question of "how many strikes".
They don’t seem to work so… no?
If you are convicted of a crime the individual offense and circumstances should be considered. Adding more punishment because someone failed to be persuaded by punishment seems ineffective at rehabilitation. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.”
Maybe it makes sense to give up on a person and lock them up forever but if we are going to do that we should be honest and thoughtful about it.
“Well baseball” doesn’t seem sophisticated enough to address what should be an exceptional action in a nuanced situation.
> If so, do you think this should be codified in sentencing policy?
This is a good question. I guess my real objection to three strikes is that it seems both arbitrary (still willing to be wrong here but so far it’s just “baseball”) and mandatory. Similarly I’m also not a huge fan of minimum sentences. Let the judges… judge.
Yes, and you should be able to find how it's handled in your state fairly easily. The fact that you don't know that, and that you're generally focusing on the rhetoric rather than ideas, makes me wonder if you're interested in the subject or just arguing...
Obviously, minimizing recidivism isn’t our only requirement.
it's a good chance, don't worry too much about where the line in the sand is drawn. I've seen multiple teams at work also bogged down by this. if there were a name for this phenomenon, I'd love to know
Very few crimes should be able to get you more than 5 years at once.