Hacker News Reader

Comment by CSMastermind | Hacker News Reader

No just lots but almost all.

63% of violent offenders reoffend but that actually undercounts the amount of crimes that are caused by repeat offenders because there are some people offending 10+ times.

A three strikes rule would eliminate nearly half of all violent crime because nearly half of violent crime is committed by people who have already been convicted of 3+ other violent crimes.

View on HN

In the Seattle area there’s a huge trend of reoffending criminals performing larger crimes as time goes, because they face no real consequences. This is happening because activist judges, who typically run unopposed and don’t face consequences themselves, are releasing dangerous criminals back into the public. As a recent example, an activist judge released a teen who committed felony robbery back into the public, against prosecutors’ pleas, and he ended up stabbing and disemboweling another teen.

https://komonews.com/news/local/everett-lions-park-stabbing-...

> there’s a huge trend of reoffending criminals performing larger crimes as time goes

Is there evidence of it? In my experience, people take a few incidents as ammunition for their reactionary attacks on 'activists'. But that doesn't mean it is or isn't happening.

Statistically, across the USA, a large majority of the judges are ex-prosecutors and definitely not "activists." I've personally known dozens of criminal court judges and I can't think of a single one that routinely sentences on the low side or would be considered an "activist." Even the defense lawyers I know that become judges usually sentence punitively, as if to show they aren't biased.

Which suggests rehab might be better than prison for getting these people to give up violence.

> A three strikes rule would eliminate nearly half of all violent crime because nearly half of violent crime is committed by people who have already been convicted of 3+ other violent crimes.

LMAO. Twenty-nine states have a three strikes rule, and their violent crime hasn't decreased by half.

Source: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/three-strikes...

Maybe it has dropped relative to what it would have been otherwise.

Then presumably the states with these rules will be the least violent in the country, right?

Spoiler: they’re not. In fact several of the states without those rules have less violent crime.

If you want to say each state is different, sure. But there is zero way of proving your hypothesis.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com