OT: Police DNA Checkpoints Arriving at a City Near You Soon!!

[CA renter]

I agree that there are some weaknesses WRT the Three Strikes laws, but if we have to chose between the lives of innocent people and violent criminals, I will side with innocent people every single time.

Rehabilitation *can* happen, but it’s rare. Putting violent criminals out on the street just to “give them a chance” is inhumane to their real and potential victims.

[spdrun]

Firstly, the three-strikes laws don’t only apply to violent crimes.

Secondly, that’s what a parole board is for. And despite what the law-and-order Fascist freaks yap about, that’s what educational and vocational programs in prison should be for — so people can be released with opportunities to do right.

I may add that criminal records should be sealed after a certain number of years, except in the most heinous of crimes. Not damaging ex-convicts’ job opportunities will reduce recidivism.

Keeping nearly one per cent of our population locked up is shameful. And expensive. We need to find a better way and move away from a concept of punishment.

[CA renter]

Agree that there should be some changes, but a violent criminal is unlikely to change. Some do, but far more do not. I will always side with victims vs. criminals. Innocent people have a right to live in a safe environment, and this trumps the “right” of violent criminals to be “rehabilitated.”

[spdrun]

Again, that’s the purpose of a parole board: to determine rehabilitative status. Life without parole is too definitive a punishment to use for someone who may be able to be rehabilitated.

Also, keep in mind that incarceration costs $25-50k/yr per convict. Imagine if that money were spent improving primary and secondary education, or put into the university system to give many more people free rides through college — you may have a lot fewer people entering prison in the first place.

Frankly, keeping almost 1% of this country’s population in prison is a WASTE as well as a disgrace.

[CA renter]

I agree that we have incarcerated too many people for fairly petty crimes — particularly “victimless” crimes. That being said, someone who goes to jail for life because of a third strike is a person who was both **caught** and **convicted** on a felony charge for the third time. Chances are that this person has committed many other felonies for which he/she was not caught and/or convicted. It is highly unlikely that a person like this can rehabilitated, IMHO.

We have to weigh the rights of victims and potential victims against the rights of the very few criminals who *might* manage to be rehabilitated in some way. If they want to be rehabilitated, they should think about that after the first felony conviction. Sorry, but I will favor the victims every single time.

[spdrun]

“Felony” doesn’t imply “violent crime” — it can be something like “participating in a political demonstration that turns violent” aka “riot.”

So is “stealing a slice of pizza from some kids” apparently…
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Stealing-one-slice-of-pizza-results-in-life-3150629.php

And drug dealing, even to consenting adults. I might agree with “three strikes” laws if the definition of qualifying crimes is upgraded only to offenses that involve death, severe bodily harm, or rape, but that should basically be it.

(EDIT: Looks like CA changed theirs somewhat last year, but that’s not all states.)

[paramount]

An example of where the US is today in terms of rights:

A fairly small group legally exercising their free speech rights (following the Kennedy 50th memorial) were beat up by the Dallas Sheriff’s Department. Keep in mind, a judge had “authorized” the demonstration and the Dallas City Police had just opened up the barricades (maybe set a trap?) to let the demonstrators in to speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7pul-zrrBA

[spdrun]

JFK must be rolling over — way to disrespect his memory, Dallas. Yep, that’s what he broke his back for (literally) in WW II, so that Americans can act like Fascist thugs.

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]”Felony” doesn’t imply “violent crime” — it can be something like “participating in a political demonstration that turns violent” aka “riot.”

So is “stealing a slice of pizza from some kids” apparently…
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Stealing-one-slice-of-pizza-results-in-life-3150629.php

And drug dealing, even to consenting adults. I might agree with “three strikes” laws if the definition of qualifying crimes is upgraded only to offenses that involve death, severe bodily harm, or rape, but that should basically be it.

(EDIT: Looks like CA changed theirs somewhat last year, but that’s not all states.)[/quote]

We’re basically in agreement.

[temeculaguy]

Why do people still champion the pizza thief, he was let go after appeal so he never really got the three strikes treatment. Oh, and he was no saint either, still isn’t. But the premise of the law is that if you commit a heinous felony (public demonstrations turning to riots does not count) and you go to prison, not jail. Then commit another one and go to prison again, and then, any felony counts as your third. Even if you kill 2 people in one day, you only get one strike. If you kill 5 people before getting caught, one strike. The point is that after you are caught, serve time, get out, do it again, serve time, you don’t get to do anything wrong, perhaps you need to stay away from potential riots at that point.

Here is a list of the felonies that qualify as your first two strikes.

http://www.threestrikes.org/tscrimes.html

The only one that doesn’t seem heinous is the burglary of an inhabited dwelling. If they dropped that one, the rest are pretty damn bad. If you read the list, spousal abuse is not listed. Bar fights not listed. Public protest that ends in a riot, not listed, unless you manage to molest a child during the protest, then I guess you are just exercising your right to free speech and things went bad. Damn government.

[spdrun]

Put it this way … If I were on a jury, I’d vote not to convict our hypothetical rioter or pizza thief. Hang the jury at the very least.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=temeculaguy]Why do people still champion the pizza thief, he was let go after appeal so he never really got the three strikes treatment. Oh, and he was no saint either, still isn’t. But the premise of the law is that if you commit a heinous felony (public demonstrations turning to riots does not count) and you go to prison, not jail. Then commit another one and go to prison again, and then, any felony counts as your third. Even if you kill 2 people in one day, you only get one strike. If you kill 5 people before getting caught, one strike. The point is that after you are caught, serve time, get out, do it again, serve time, you don’t get to do anything wrong, perhaps you need to stay away from potential riots at that point.

Here is a list of the felonies that qualify as your first two strikes.

http://www.threestrikes.org/tscrimes.html

The only one that doesn’t seem heinous is the burglary of an inhabited dwelling. If they dropped that one, the rest are pretty damn bad. If you read the list, spousal abuse is not listed. Bar fights not listed. Public protest that ends in a riot, not listed, unless you manage to molest a child during the protest, then I guess you are just exercising your right to free speech and things went bad. Damn government.[/quote]

Bad analogy.

If you kill five people in one day you are probably NOT going to get out.

But understand your point.

CE

[no_such_reality]

Los Angeles Sheriff Department’s stringent hiring practices.

[quote]Sheriff’s Department hired officers with histories of misconduct

Despite background investigations that revealed wrongdoing, incompetence, or poor performance, the department still hired dozens of problem applicants in 2010, internal records show.

The department made the hires in 2010 after taking over patrols of parks and government buildings from a little-known L.A. County police force. Officers from that agency were given first shot at new jobs with the Sheriff’s Department. Investigators gave them lie detector tests and delved into their employment records and personal lives.

The Times reviewed the officers’ internal hiring files, which also contained recorded interviews of the applicants by sheriff’s investigators.

Ultimately, about 280 county officers were given jobs, including applicants who had accidentally fired their weapons, had sex at work and solicited prostitutes, the records show.

For nearly 100 hires, investigators discovered evidence of dishonesty, such as making untrue statements or falsifying police records. At least 15 were caught cheating on the department’s own polygraph exams.

Twenty-nine of those given jobs had previously had been fired or pressured to resign from other law enforcement agencies over concerns about misconduct or workplace performance problems. Nearly 200 had been rejected from other agencies because of past misdeeds, failed entrance exams or other issues.[/quote]

Best pay attention next time you’re in Los Angeles County.

[no_such_reality]

The Kelly Thomas police beating death murder trial started.

The defense position is simple, not only didn’t the two EX-officers use excessive force, the real problem was they didn’t use ENOUGH force

[spdrun]

Hopefully the members of the jury will do their duty. (And the defense lawyers will be drug tested.)

[Author]

Posts