[doggyfizzel]

(Original post by dj1015)
Do you support gun ownership? As this would be the ideal solution for self property defence.

How, currently few burglars are going to be carrying guns, so you are just adjusting the situation to one where both people are more heavily armed, turing potential thefts into multiple murders. Even with a gun there is no guarantee you are equally armed, your pistol is going to pale in comparison to an AK someone has converted to fully auto.

That's before you get into the additional problems of having guns in circulation such as street crime, rape, Virginia tech esque shootings, armed robbery, drunk shootings. At these things will be made worst by introducing guns into common circulation.

The only thing that gun ownership has changed in the US is the fact you are much more likely than in any other developed country to be shot and killed, whilst being free might I add

[zeropoint]

(Original post by dj1015)
What's wrong with this? It shows society that criminals get the treatment they deserve. They american prison system is something we should aspire to.

You totally correct, they murderer and rapist should stay in prison until they die. But capital punishment should also be a options for murderers and rapists.

After the 3 crime, I dont think so. They have give society an ample demonstration of why they are beyond rehabilitation.

I do not support medieval punishments. Clearly you do....

The problem with the American system is its causing a massive financial drain on their country. To implement in the UK would require a huge investment in the prison service, and an ongoing drain on the taxpayer, significantly more than the crime is costing.

You do not support medieval punishments, except capital punishment, alight. I think Sharia law is bad for the criminal, I think 3 Strikes is bad for the criminal and the society.

If a teenager commits three crimes and recieves a small custodial or commuity sentence, they might snap out of it and five years down the line they may be a completely different person. Someone in their mid-twenties or thirties is very different from someone in their teens. 3 Strikes is just wasting a lot of lives.

[AJCSShp]

(Original post by dj1015)
Would you support an introduction of the 3 strikes rule in the UK to help cut minor and major crime?

But capital punishment should also be a options for murderers and rapists.

They american prison system is something we should aspire to.

25 years for committing three minor crimes? That is insane!
It would ruin peoples lives, teenagers do all kinds of stupid things, but when they grow up they stop, they don't deserve 25 years in prison for it!

3 strikes and you go to jail for maybe 6 months- 1 year is a good idea, skip right over juvie for teenagers. Making prisons a lot less comfortable, no tvs etc would deter repeat offenders.

I agree life imprisonment should mean life (no parole). And serious crimes such as armed robbery, murder and rape should get longer terms. However I don't support capital punishment.

Finally looking up to the american prison system! Are you being serious?

[simonbellringer]

(Original post by RyanT)
No, but I do think repeat offenders should be dealt with more harshly.

A three strikes rule however is a straight-jacket that is entirely inappropriate for the proper functioning of justice and leads to arbitrary and unjust decisions. Quite frankly, if three strikes are needed then the punishment wasn't hard enough to begin with. I'd rather have a terrifying prison system with enforced 23 hour/day isolation then locking people up for 25 years because they did "3 strikes".

Have you seen what passes for a crime in modern Britain?
Half of twitter will end up in jail within the next decade.

Also lets be honest, many of the criminals are in fact foreigners/immigrants. I will not support the enforcement of 3 strikes just because the police and politicians are too scared to name the real menace on our streets.

Ah we've hit the nail on the head. Three strikes and they're out. Deported. Back to where the hell they've come from. If they are found to be illegal immigrants they should send them back straight away anyway!!

[SubAtomic]

They just adopted baseball rules, two strikes is plenty when it comes to life. We should learn from our mistakes after the first one.

e.g. Unprotected sex once, chlamydia, twice, genital warts, third time, AIDS.

I'd rather learn from my first mistake than end up on two.

The severity of the crime also comes into play. Who decides the severity scale? A few powerful boring anti-everything type people no doubt. Would probably have cannabis use as a level two severity. And alcohol use as zero.

Also the idea of being in jail for 25 years because of being caught in possession of drugs three time is pathetic, backwards, it is just so wrong and such a waste of resources. I mean come on, you want to drink, cool, I don't, I want to smoke pot. (I don't smoke at all, don't drink a great deal either, just saying different people wind down in different ways so why should they be criminalised by archaic rules)

The laws are made and passed by boring old people and some of the laws need to change before any strike system comes into play.

IMO an ideal world would have a global law. Not saying we should adopt Sharia law or whatever law, just saying it'd be better if everyone sorted it out and stopped being an *******.

[Herr]

No, there should be a zero tolerance towards crime. While not all criminal activity should be punishable by custodial sentences, I think there needs to be more prison time and a swift deportation of all foreign criminals.

[Pink Boy]

25 years for minor crimes, lol. Murderers don't even have to stay in prison that long.

[Nick1sHere]

Get caught stealing a few pounds to pay for weed, get arrested for drink driving, get caught smoking weed

I'm now in prison for 25 years. Yeah, great idea

[amirlad]

what's a minor offence. a speeding ticket? parking offences?

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by RyanT)
No, but I do think repeat offenders should be dealt with more harshly.

A three strikes rule however is a straight-jacket that is entirely inappropriate for the proper functioning of justice and leads to arbitrary and unjust decisions. Quite frankly, if three strikes are needed then the punishment wasn't hard enough to begin with. I'd rather have a terrifying prison system with enforced 23 hour/day isolation then locking people up for 25 years because they did "3 strikes".

Have you seen what passes for a crime in modern Britain?
Half of twitter will end up in jail within the next decade.

Also lets be honest, many of the criminals are in fact foreigners/immigrants. I will not support the enforcement of 3 strikes just because the police and politicians are too scared to name the real menace on our streets.

Presumably you have the evidence to back that statement up?

[Cattty]

(Original post by Pandabär)
So Person A steals a dvd for his son's birthday, and Person B steals an identical dvd for his own benefit. Should person A be charged more leniently as he had the good fortune of being fertile?

Back on topic, OP, no obviously not, stop trolling. Really silly idea.

i was simply making the point that there are reasons why people commit crimes and minor crimes do not deserve 25 yrs imprisonment

[Pandabär]

(Original post by Cattty)
i was simply making the point that there are reasons why people commit crimes and minor crimes do not deserve 25 yrs imprisonment

Lol, no-one sane would argue that minor crimes deserve 25 years imprisonment. If you read my post you'll see I think it's a ridiculous idea, as will everyone else. My point was with another of yours.

The problem is that you implied that some criminals are more guilty than others. Imagine two identical shoplifting crimes- whether you shoplifted in the most altruistic way possible (donating the proceeds to charity etc), or simply were selfish (and kept the lot for yourself) it's an identical action. 'A rose by any other name', and all that...

That's also why, in court, a judge won't work on a case where his best mate is the defendant, as it's so easy to let other information cloud your judgement, and he won't get a fair trial. The fact you know that the accused is a family man, loves dogs, donates to charity and enjoys golf shouldn't influence the decision. If you 'let him off', then it becomes unfair to anyone who has ever committed an identical crime, but been reprimanded far more harshly.

[AspiringGenius]

(Original post by Cattty)
for serious crimes, yes, but 25 yrs for a minor crime is a bit extreme. so someone steals a couple of dvds from a shop- does that really deserve 25 yrs? what if they were stealing it for their kids bday or sumt?

major crimes need far harsher punishment i agree with you there. but looking at it in practise for example in america- people get ridiculously long sentences there, even capital punishment and serious crime still goes on. look at that guy who shot all those people in the cinema- colorado has the death penalty and this still didnt deter him.
there needs to be more focus on early life, stop children becoming criminals, social services need to be stricter on parents, teenagers and older children at risk of offending need to be taken into prisons to see how they could end up- and prison needs to be far harsher- no x box or tv, crap food, locked up for most of the day, etc

I think you're right about it being too steep. If this were ever implemented, there would be varying sentences for varying degrees of crime.

However, I do feel it incorrect to justify stealing "for his kids birthday". The reason does not make taking another's rightful property as your own when it isn't.

[BaldFadedBrother]

(Original post by Narev)
So people who troll (and get charged) three times in a row get locked up? I SUPPORT THIS!

You've got two strikes remaining then.

[Cattty]

(Original post by Pandabär)
Lol, no-one sane would argue that minor crimes deserve 25 years imprisonment. If you read my post you'll see I think it's a ridiculous idea, as will everyone else. My point was with another of yours.

The problem is that you implied that some criminals are more guilty than others. Imagine two identical shoplifting crimes- whether you shoplifted in the most altruistic way possible (donating the proceeds to charity etc), or simply were selfish (and kept the lot for yourself) it's an identical action. 'A rose by any other name', and all that...

That's also why, in court, a judge won't work on a case where his best mate is the defendant, as it's so easy to let other information cloud your judgement, and he won't get a fair trial. The fact you know that the accused is a family man, loves dogs, donates to charity and enjoys golf shouldn't influence the decision. If you 'let him off', then it becomes unfair to anyone who has ever committed an identical crime, but been reprimanded far more harshly.

its more about the reasons for the crime. aggravating and mitigating factors are taken into consideration.
lets look at a more serious crime- murder.
one person finds out their ex is seeing someone else, they get jealous and kill them. another person is beaten up by their partner everyday, they constantly live in fear, they cant take any more and one day they snap.
this is the same crime but there are aggravating and mitigating factors the second person is more likely to get a shorter sentence because of this- crime is not black and white and straightforward 'they committed this crime, so the punishment is this....' it is not that straightforward. the countries which do see crimes as black and white can enforce their punishments unfairly- for example, in saudi the punishment for stealing is having your hand cut off.
so one person breaks into someones house, steals their tv and other expensive items out of pure greed, another person steals some food to feed their family because they cant afford to buy it and they dont want their children to starve- do both these crimes really deserve the same punishment?

[Leon Trotsky]

No. There are so many people in the United States whose third strike was something really petty, like possession of marijuana, who've then gone on to serve huge, inordinate prison sentences. I don't think there's a great deal to envy about the US justice system.

[Pandabär]

(Original post by Cattty)
its more about the reasons for the crime. aggravating and mitigating factors are taken into consideration.
lets look at a more serious crime- murder.
one person finds out their ex is seeing someone else, they get jealous and kill them. another person is beaten up by their partner everyday, they constantly live in fear, they cant take any more and one day they snap.
this is the same crime but there are aggravating and mitigating factors the second person is more likely to get a shorter sentence because of this- crime is not black and white and straightforward 'they committed this crime, so the punishment is this....' it is not that straightforward. the countries which do see crimes as black and white can enforce their punishments unfairly- for example, in saudi the punishment for stealing is having your hand cut off.
so one person breaks into someones house, steals their tv and other expensive items out of pure greed, another person steals some food to feed their family because they cant afford to buy it and they dont want their children to starve- do both these crimes really deserve the same punishment?

Exactly. So with your original argument the question is, does being fertile mean you deserve less punishment than someone without children?

[Cattty]

(Original post by Pandabär)
Exactly. So with your original argument the question is, does being fertile mean you deserve less punishment than someone without children?

what?
what i just said had nothing to do with whether you have children or not, i was talking about reasons behind the crime, stealing something you cant afford for your kids birthday was just one example

[rawkus]

(Original post by dj1015)
Would you support an introduction of the 3 strikes rule in the UK to help cut minor and major crime?

I do!

With criminals constantly reoffending once released from prison, maybe we need to take more firm action against them. This country is far to soft on crime, and we need to show criminals that we are serious about punishment.

If after the 3rd minor crime, the defendant is automatically sentenced to a mandatory 25 years without parole. This would stop them from committing further crime. Also if someone is constantly committing minor crimes, it often escalates in to more serious offences. So taking them out of society before they can commit they more serious offences then this would be of benefit to them and society as a whole.

Clearly someone doesn't deserve to be rehabilitated if they repeatedly commit crimes. And 2 chances is enough for anyone to show they can be part of society. So locking them away for 25 years will once again benefit the whole of the public.

edit: It appears from some responses that people dont quite understand the point of 3 strikes. The idea is, is to lock away minor offenders before they commits more crimes. Its not meant to be harsh. A stay of 25 years is for their benefit, as well as society.

Also, a country with a large prison population is a good thing in my eyes. It shows everyone you are serious about punishing criminals.

congratulations for agreeing to fund the enormous amount needed to fund the vast system of prisons that will be needed to hold the millions of prisoners that your idea will create. If some kid was unfortunate enough to get caught shoplifting, then smoking weed, then being drunk on the streets, are you really advocating imprisoning this person? You are right, hardened criminals don't begin their careers robbing banks having usually graduated from more minor crimes. but for every reggie kray there are hundreds of thousands of people who commit minor crimes but who don't then go on to commit serious crimes. Justice is about punishing someone for something they have done, not something they may or may not do in the future.

A country with a large prison population does not mean that they are serious about punishing criminals. North Korea has a very large prison population, do you agree with their judicial system? A less extreme example is America where we see those imprisoned for using drugs (whether it be crack or marijuana) whilst those who defraud the system for their own gain are immune from punishment just so long as they know the right people.

[themedicalgeek]

The idea is too simple a solution for a very complex problem. Crime committed in urban areas by juveniles is often due to social problems i.e parenting issues, unemployment (neet), gangs, drugs ... How is it right to put someone in jail for 25 years if the crimes they committed were a result of being failed by the government? Community service or some type of reformation class makes more sense. The person would come out of jail after 25 years hating society more than they went in and would probably commit crime again. If what an inmate did inside prison was reformed then sentences could be shortened as prisoners would be rehabilitated. Ideas could be get back to work schemes, trades, education.. A lot of these are in effect now but not widely.

I think the justice system in general needs to be reformed, it is obviously not working when reoffending rates are so high. Most offenders ( except sociopaths, those with mental illnesses) can become good members of society when they are rehabilitated correctly. So, it makes sense to implement some sort of 3 strike as it allows the government to monitor repeat offenders but the punishment at the end being community service or a short prison term and vary the punishment according to severity and and special circumstances that could have caused the crime to be committed. A very difficult problem but 25 years is just too general although a good start for debate.