Cmon people.... three strikes is all about violent criminals, not simply 3 arrests.

They've modified the 3 strikes rule many times. Of course most states it has never been used, but no it has not always applied to only violent crimes.
There are also habitual offender laws based on three strikes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law

There is a temptation to listen to outlier cases and make policy judgements based on those outlier cases even when they do not make our communities safer. The evidence is clear that as offenders age they are less likely to commit crimes making decades long sentences and the death penalty draconian.

Sounds like you want to move here and get the full livin' in Oklahoma experience!

For the first time , the pope came out against life without parole sentences in 2019:

https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/fr...rime-pope-says

I hope I get to see it one day, a world without the death penalty or life without parole

18

Like Texas and California.....

'Please, won't somebody think of the serial child-killers?'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...yside-66823777

So you think alcohol age limit should be lowered to 18 not stay at 21 ?

I truly don't understand Spaceman's mindset. What other sentence other than whole life is viable for the likes of Letby, Harold Shipman, the NZ Mosque shooter, Breivick etc? Shipman alone is estimated to have murdered 250 people. Rehabilitation isn't an option for such types. To actually be against whole life sentences for such offenders is quite frankly mind boggling for me.

If she was also convicted ten times, it would have been better for society if she had been locked up after the first three.

Possibly because his predecessor is one of the people who should be serving life without parole.

In season 1 episode 3 of attorney woo, this is pengsoo, attorney woo must defend an alleged killer who has an extreme form of autism and can't speak effectively to defend himself. It's a great show. The main character of the show is a brilliant lawyer and the first lawyer to graduate at the top of her class and be hired by a big law firm who has autism. She has autism, her client has autism and is a likely murderer.



There is a beautiful moment where Mrs. Woo reflects on her clients complete inability to be a member of society and her own autism and how for a long time and including the nazis only 70 years ago they simply killed people like her and whether her existence is a net positive to society.


I have done a great deal of reflecting about this as well. Where i'm from- Texas, and Kansas justice is often harsh. But what really gets to me is the things people say over the years. Folks talk about how much better the world would be if they just hung all the liberals, about how we should kill all the drug dealers and if someone breaks into their car they'll talk to the prosecutor about locking them up and throwing away the key. I don't even want to mention the things i've heard over the years.

So I've done a lot of reflecting on this over the years in a similar way. Do gays deserve to exist? Do people with learning disabilities such as mine deserve to exist? In many countries they still have the death penalty for things like gay sex and drug possession.

What I've found is not only am I not evil or unable to function in society but actually better than most people. And everyone is redeemable. So I would say I mostly came to my viewpoint by thinking about it and actually caring.

Norway sentenced anders brevik to 21 years in prison and they did it beautifully. Is that not a good sentence? It was approved by multiple courts and the Norwegian sentencing commission. Norway has a recidivism rate that is roughly a half to a third of us recidivism rate. David Sklansky had some good posts about this but basically from my viewpoint I don't think the death penalty saves lives at all, in fact I think the crime rates are much lower in europe than the us, and I would argue that by having the death penalty and virtual life sentences you're making society less safe for everyone.

https://ctmirror.org/2023/01/04/ct-j...tation-norway/

We're not talking about people with autism or gay people or hanging liberals. We're talking about mass murderers and the worst of the worst.
Breivik isn't getting out. Norway have a loophole where they can keep putting you back for five years at a time indefinitely if need be even after the 21 years sentence is up. And I have a funny feeling that's what's gonna happen with Breivik.

Recidivism? We release Lucy Letby if we think there's a better than average chance that she won't murder any more infants? Recidivism doesn't apply to such types. As was mentioned earlier itt there's a punishment aspect also and it applies to certain offenders for the good of society.

You're from Texas? You think the likes of Texan serial killer Elmer Wayne Hendley should be given parole, a serial torture murderer of kids? How about the murderers of James Byrd Jr? (I don't agree with the death penalty and two of them being executed but what they did certainly warranted a LWOP sentence)

So yeah I'm quite baffled by your mindset, seriously.

When you say we're not talking about gay people or mentally ill people we're talking about the "worst of the worst" , I was explaining how I came to my views on this issue. First off, both of those groups are considered the worst of the worst by some, the law in many countries makes no effective distinction between a murderer, same sex relationships or drug dealers because in many societies they are all deemed the "worst of the worst. " In my opinion there is no "worst of the worst." My main point was just that I've thought a lot about it from the perspective of the damned.

Norway doesn't have a "loophole", they simply have a preventative detention option available to them in determining release dates for their worst criminals. It is used very rarely but I would guess that in this case when 2033 comes around they will use the preventative detention option to keep him locked up for another 5 years because he truly hasn't shown adequate remorse for his crimes or changed as a person. I support every part of this. It is a much more humane approach than the death penalty or life without parole.

We were not talking about serial killers primarily, those are outlier cases that are bad for policy making decisions. The vast majority of those convicted of murder murdered 1, ,2 , or 0 people. You, and 57 on red were merely highlighting a few extreme cases to make lwop and murder penalties seem sensible. I think one of the reasons a punitive approach has been shown to lead to more crime is there is no sense of redemption or hope for the criminal but also the families involved. It's a lot different to kill someone's father or brother or daughter or mother than to send them to prison for years. That way the family can know them and visit them.

Chesa Boudin, a liberal DA and Yale law school graduate was greatly effected by his parents receiving a life sentence when he was a baby. His parents were charged and convicted of murder despite never killing anyone. They were getaway drivers in a bank robbery gone wrong, where someone else shot a guard. This inspired him to start a career in law with a focus on less harsh sentencing. Should someone lose both their parents for life for driving someone who murdered someone? I don't think so. So with murderyou have to decide where you draw the line

vehicular homicide
involuntary manslaughter
committing a felony during a murder
voluntary manslaughter
second degree murder
first degree murder
2 murders
10 murders

I would suggest that Norways approach is a good one and it doesn't do anyone good to throw around life sentences like candy.

How did two people drive one murderer?

Seems like the effect was both positive and negative. Positive: He ended up going to Yale. This probably wouldn't happen if raised by bank robbers. Negative: He became a liberal.

its called conspiracy

He probably had a better life in all ways than if he had been raised by bank robbers. His life seems more like an argument for life sentences than against them (or at least a good argument for taking children away from felons).

I want to know why on Earth you'd need two getaway drivers.

It's a very fascinating case, you should read about it. For starters, there was an ivy league club much like mit blackjack team that planned bank robberies. The robbery got messed up when someone from the black liberation army got trigger happy and shot a bunch of guards. Everyone involved got life sentences or threatened with such. both parents were accused of murder, robbery , and being getaway drivers.

Wow, you took down the pope's credibility with just one post!
That guys thoughts are irrrelevant now

Bank robbery= illegal

Card counting= legal

Bank robbery= dumb

Card counting= smart