USA ROCKS. (poon)

[Lavos]

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=40704

(poon.)

[dark_realm]

i want donuts now...

[Allen!]

Dude that asian news chick creeps me out for some reason.

[Allen!]

Also, I am so srsly srs.

[Fatsobob]

DONT STEAL SHIT IN AMERICA!

[tak197]

Oh great, MORE proof that the US legal system is fucked up.

[Zyxst]

For great justice.

Did people miss out the DA saying their office had given him one break on his 3rd felony because his crimes were such a long time ago?

If the 3rd strike law gets repelled, how will the people react when someone commits a "real" *rolls eyes* crime and the felon gets off with a lesser charge?

[emma]

People should be charged for the crime they are committing - obviously their past record should be take into consideration, but there is no reason why they would receive lesser sentences because they hadn't been arrested before.

[empath]

Okay...how MANY donuts was this - even a Newfie like me knows California's '3rd Strike Law' is for felonies. Or did he hold a gun to the clerk's head for the chocolate dip, or something?

Either the liberal-slanted media (yeah, I said it; deal) is ignoring the relevance of THREE FELONY CONVICTIONS for this man (what were the other two - murder? Rape?) in favour of 'stirring up trouble for ratings', or the Californian prosecutor (and judge &/or jury) have flaws in their understanding the difference between 'misdemeanor' and 'felony'...


I still question the source; this is why I don't watch TV anymore.

[korri]

this isn't the first time this has happened... aparently if you steal three times you get a much longer sentence then a man who has raped someone once.. and stop me if you think my logic is bad, but stealing 3 times < Raping once...

[Zyxst]

3 strikes and you're out law

"Robbery is feloniously taking personal property from another person or in the person's immediate presence, by using force or causing fear." - http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/ca/law/c13.html#cac130400

[Wraith]

Here's what everyone always seems to miss with these things: It's not "oh, he stole a pack of donuts, he should go away forever." It's "first he murdered someone, then he got out of prison, beat a man half to death, got out of prison AGAIN, and then robbed someone for donuts (because last I heard, it had to be a felony, of which shoplifting would not qualify)."

In other words, it's not so much how serious the crimes are, it's the fact that they get caught, go through the system, get out, do it again, go through the system, get out, and then do it a third time. This means that they're not learning. Rehabilitation is not taking. It's the inability to trust them outside of a prison.

[browncoat]

Yeah, tomorrow he might steal a whole pack of Pizza!
We have to put him behind bars for ever!

I mean, the prisons in California aren't even 300% full, and prisoners pay their rent and food and medical, so there is NO reason not to put him in prison.

There was a nice article in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Germany's second biggest newspaper) about how the US got from a (kinda) noble, innovative super-power to a "emerging nation" (though... they're probably... demerging or what ever the opposite of emerging is.

[Cake]

Yeah, tomorrow he might steal a whole pack of Pizza!

Or a car! Or a shotgun from his neighbor! Or an iPod!

It doesn't matter what you steal. It is still stealing.

[NachoManLance]

Well, shit. I need to stop taking Tootsie-roll Pops from my 7-11.

I'm telling you, it's way too easy.

[empath]

Here's what everyone always seems to miss with these things: It's not "oh, he stole a pack of donuts, he should go away forever." It's "first he murdered someone, then he got out of prison, beat a man half to death, got out of prison AGAIN, and then robbed someone for donuts (because last I heard, it had to be a felony, of which shoplifting would not qualify)."

In other words, it's not so much how serious the crimes are, it's the fact that they get caught, go through the system, get out, do it again, go through the system, get out, and then do it a third time. This means that they're not learning. Rehabilitation is not taking. It's the inability to trust them outside of a prison.

QFT - I'm reminded of a line from a Tim Wilson song:

Been married nine times? Hell, maybe it's YOU.

And to reiterate, for the theft of donuts to become a felony, it's just as simple as him having made a believable and sincere threat to kill or maim the clerk if he didn't turn over the food.

[emma]

Here's what everyone always seems to miss with these things: It's not "oh, he stole a pack of donuts, he should go away forever." It's "first he murdered someone, then he got out of prison, beat a man half to death, got out of prison AGAIN, and then robbed someone for donuts (because last I heard, it had to be a felony, of which shoplifting would not qualify)."

In other words, it's not so much how serious the crimes are, it's the fact that they get caught, go through the system, get out, do it again, go through the system, get out, and then do it a third time. This means that they're not learning. Rehabilitation is not taking. It's the inability to trust them outside of a prison.

Shouldn't he be tried for the crime he is committing, not one he was already tried (and punished) for? If you do a crime, you pay the time, as they say. If you do another crime, you shouldn't be paying the time for the first one which you already paid for.

[Wraith]

Yeah, tomorrow he might steal a whole pack of Pizza!
We have to put him behind bars for ever!

Or, he might kill or rape a second person.

Essentially, it's like saying that if you kill someone, go to prison, get out, don't learn your lesson, rape someone, go to prison, and then get out again, you're on permanent parole; which, IMO, doesn't seem like such a bad idea. The only thing worst than hearing that three kids were oprhaned after a murder is hearing that three kids were orphaned by someone who had already been arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to prison for a violent crime four times already.

[Wraith]

Here's what everyone always seems to miss with these things: It's not "oh, he stole a pack of donuts, he should go away forever." It's "first he murdered someone, then he got out of prison, beat a man half to death, got out of prison AGAIN, and then robbed someone for donuts (because last I heard, it had to be a felony, of which shoplifting would not qualify)."

In other words, it's not so much how serious the crimes are, it's the fact that they get caught, go through the system, get out, do it again, go through the system, get out, and then do it a third time. This means that they're not learning. Rehabilitation is not taking. It's the inability to trust them outside of a prison.

Shouldn't he be tried for the crime he is committing, not one he was already tried (and punished) for? If you do a crime, you pay the time, as they say. If you do another crime, you shouldn't be paying the time for the first one which you already paid for.

No, because you're establishing a pattern of behavior that indicates you are a great danger to society. The idea of prison isn't just to make the prisoner miserable. It's to protect society from threats; and someone who has developed a pattern of criminal behavior, who has been in and out of the prison again and again is more likely to prey upon society than someone who has a spotless record. Not only does it speak to what kind of person they are (or perhaps the severity of their pathology), it indicates that prison simply is not serving as an effective deterrent, which means you have to come up with something else to threaten them with (which we can't, do to civil rights laws), or we stop trying to deter them and just forcibly prevent them from doing it, by locking them up.

[emma]

I realize that they are obviously a greater risk and should be behind bars, but basically I am saying that if he killed a dude and raped a lady, why is he out of jail in the first place to get arrested again?

I totally agree that the three strikes program works well for violent crime. But this wasn't a violent crime.

The idea of prison isn't just to make the prisoner miserable. It's to protect society from threats;

Protecting society is a bonus; jail is meant as a punishment. It is there to deter people from committing crimes, because they know they will end up punished if they commit them. Protecting society is a bonus.

[Wraith]

I realize that they are obviously a greater risk and should be behind bars, but basically I am saying that if he killed a dude and raped a lady, why is he out of jail in the first place to get arrested again?

I totally agree that the three strikes program works well for violent crime. But this wasn't a violent crime.

Firstly, he's out because of what we consider "due process", the stuff that people cry and picket about if we don't follow. As for this not being a violent crime, the three strike rule only applies to felony. Since shoplifting a donut is not a felony, I'm left to assume that the report is leaving something out. Hardly an unusual occurrence.

The idea of prison isn't just to make the prisoner miserable. It's to protect society from threats;

Protecting society is a bonus; jail is meant as a punishment. It is there to deter people from committing crimes, because they know they will end up punished if they commit them. Protecting society is a bonus.

uhhh...

deter people from committing crimes = protecting society.

math.

The problem is that if they keep getting locked up, getting out, and committing crimes, then they're not BEING detered. That means we have to either come up with a different, non-prison punishment, which civil rights activists will not permit us to do, or lock them up for good.

[emma]

The problem with this is obviously that they weren't punished severely enough the first time. It's not that he deserved to be punished for stealing donuts, its that he never should have had the chance to steal them, because really he should still be in jail.

[AlexanderDitto]

deter people from committing crimes = protecting society.

math.

THIS IS HARDLY MATH. STOP MAKING MY JOB LOOK EASY.

Haha. Just kidding! Math is everywhere, kids!

Yeah, normally, I would say "OK, people make mistakes, three strikes makes sense," because obviously if you do it three times, it's not a mistake, but rape? Yeah, that's... not really a mistake. It's not like you trip and fall and accidentally rape someone. I'm not sure why anyone would even be out on parole for something like raping and killing...

On the other hand, you can't keep everyone who's done something wrong in prison forever... but still, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of people who kill other people just waltzing around free after they "serve their sentence" (though I question how you can equate an amount of time in prison as payment for the value of a person's life...), so I guess I'm going to agree with both emma and Wraith and pretty much everyone else in this thread.

Yeah. So... erm... who's up for donuts?

[JohnyMcmuffin]

I'm in more of a scone mood. They distract me from the complications and flaws that come with our legal system.

[tak197]

I'm in more of a scone mood. They distract me from the complications and flaws that come with our legal system.

OOH can i have one too?