50 years for shop lifting.

[boss]

saw a thing today on some show about a guy who has been facing 50 to life for shop lifting. its california's 3 strike law and the guy is fucked!!! if you get busted for the same crime or like crime you face this law, is it right? i also saw that he had a previous history but he wasnt a killer or anything. make me be glad i dont live there.

 

[DBCooper]

I think it was 3 felonies was the 3 strikes law, and any theft over 500 bucks is usually a felony.

 

[boss]

ya but still holy shit!!!!

 

[HumorMe]

He needs to find a new profession because it sound like he must suck at shoplifting.

 

[Code]

He deserves it, dumbass got caught 3 times. Each time with enough shit to make it a felony, have fun being someone's beeyoch in San Quintin!

 

[Lao Tzu]

i dont think you need a 3rd felony, you just need any crime. I read once about a guy who had committed a couple of serious crimes in the early 80's, turned his life around, and ended up writing some bad checks a few years ago who got a life sentence in california.

 

[DBCooper]

OK, a couple serious crimes=2 felonies, + enough bad checks=3 felonies.

 

[The Republican]

He deserves it. The man obviously has no respect for the law.

 

[Lao Tzu]

i dont think you need a felony for the 3rd in the 3 strikes law, any crime will do.

 

[DBCooper]

http://www.commandcollege.com/futures_files/abstracts/00000089.htm

 

[Lao Tzu]

i stand corrected

 

[Tiervexx]

He deserves it. The man obviously has no respect for the law.

agreed

 

[trailseeker]

Dude, he knew the consequences of his actions, knew that he was a repeated felon, knew his actions were wrong, and knew about the 3 strikes rule. But he fucked it up anyway. In my opinion, he should get 50 for plain stupidity.

 

[Rio 2001]

I guess if you break the law 3 times, you are considered incorrigible, then?
I don´t know about that, each case is different...

 

[Dragon14]

Judge should have discretion. Those who think that 3 strikes solves anything are most likely delusional revivalists. It makes them feel better to know there is a cut-off point... and 3 strikes is easy to remember for the Joe 6-pack, flag waving yahoos.

 

[Robert Jan]

I dont have one bit of respect for the law. should i be locked up?

 

[Code]

i dont think you need a felony for the 3rd in the 3 strikes law, any crime will do.

No, it has to be be a felony.
Writing enough bad checks is a felony.

Where is C-Ditty when you need him?

 

[Nathan]

I'm a highly skilled shoplifter. I steal all the time and have never been caught. My skin is made of gold and these damn diamond shoes are too tight.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Cost to retail outlets for shoplifted goods: $1000? maybe? $3000 max.

Cost to taxpayers to incarcerate this guy for 50 years: $2M

And we wonder why CA is $38B in debt, recalling the governor, and on the verge of economic collpase.

 

[The Republican]

I dont have one bit of respect for the law. should i be locked up?

If you are a career criminal, then yes.

 

[javaguru]

So what if it's a third felony, it's a freaking shoplifting felony. There is no justification for a long prison term. Prison does not rehabilitate it only incapacitates, prevents them from committing more crimes while in prison, while costing tax payers vast amounts of money. Therefore, long prison terms are only justified for violent/dangerous criminals IMO. A more appropriate punishment would be a stiff fine and restitution at 2x the value of the goods per conviction. The person would spend time in county jail with work release until all fines and penalties were paid. If unemployed they would be contracted to companies for minimum wage. The unemployed would pay a transportation fee to the state.

 

[Code]

So what if it's a third felony, it's a freaking shoplifting felony. There is no justification for a long prison term. Prison does not rehabilitate it only incapacitates, prevents them from committing more crimes while in prison, while costing tax payers vast amounts of money. Therefore, long prison terms are only justified for violent/dangerous criminals IMO. A more appropriate punishment would be a stiff fine and restitution at 2x the value of the goods per conviction. The person would spend time in county jail with work release until all fines and penalties were paid. If unemployed they would be contracted to companies for minimum wage. The unemployed would pay a transportation fee to the state.

I don't understand why people think prison is about rehabilitation, it's about getting fucking punished.

The guy got his 3rd felony, he knew what he was doing. Now he can rot in prison, one less dumbass.

Prison is like a form a Darwinism, only there's a way to escape extinction by using the parole board.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I don't understand why people think prison is about rehabilitation, it's about getting fucking punished.

Totally. but the punishment should fit the crime.

The guy got his 3rd felony, he knew what he was doing. Now he can rot in prison, one less dumbass.

The Saudi motto?

Anyway, this comes at a cost to the taxpayers (society) far beyond the harm he did to society. Brilliant. A few thousand dollars in shoplifting. A few million dollars to care for him.

Prison is like a form a Darwinism,

They say the same about religion and the economy.
Not sure why it is relevant here.

 

[javaguru]

The problem is that prison, particularly fifty years worth, is more than excessive for this crime. It costs the taxpayers vast amounts of money and returns nothing except saving some big retail stores a few thousand dollars a year. From an economic efficiency standpoint it would be cheaper give him a slap on the wrist jail sentence, a big fine and continue to allow him to steal. It would cost the taxpayers a hell of a lot less money in the long run in prison costs Vs. the increased price of goods paid for covering shoplifted goods.

Ideally, prisons should rehabilitate, but they don't. Also, "punishment" doesn't work just like rehabilitation doesn't work. Therefore, prison should be reserved for those who must be incapacitated as their presence in society is so detrimental. Someone who gets busted selling a small amount of pot or a shoplifter doesn't fit this profile. Armed robbers, rapists and child molesters do fit this profile. The prison industry is one of the fastest growing industry in America thanks to these excessive "tough on crime" bullshit laws politicians pass to get elected.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Ideally, prisons should rehabilitate, but they don't. Also, "punishment" doesn't work just like rehabilitation doesn't work. Therefore, prison should be reserved for those who must be incapacitated as their presence in society is so detrimental. Someone who gets busted selling a small amount of pot or a shoplifter doesn't fit this profile. Armed robbers, rapists and child molesters do fit this profile. The prison industry is one of the fastest growing industry in America thanks to these excessive "tough on crime" bullshit laws politicians pass to get elected.

BINGO!!!

Someone has a brain. Quick, hide it, before the sheep come out.

If punishment worked, crime would go away, because we keep making it tougher and tougher. 3 strikes has not made even a dent in crime. The death penalty hasn't stopped murder. Hiring more cops doesn't help either.

It doesn't work. Wake up!!

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

what are your ideas for crime reduction? Re-distribution of wealth?

Fewer laws and fewer cops would be step 1. We've gone in the other direction with zero impact for too long.

Step 2: Punishments would concetrate more on making the party who suffered a loss whole again. (Obviously, for more severe crimes, removal from society through imprisonment is needed).


Let;s start there.

 

[SV2]

It doesn't work. Wake up!!

what are your ideas for crime reduction? Re-distribution of wealth?

 

[Code]

If punishment worked, crime would go away,

It doesn't work. Wake up!!

Severe punishment works, i.e. life in prison and the death penalty. It doesn't make crime go away, it makes criminals go away.

Life in prison with none of the fucking fringe benefits, like TV, and basketball courts and shit.

I say put them in a concrete cell with a shitter and a blanket, nothing else. Or just kill them after a 30 day appeals process has expired.

Rehab doesn't stop crime. Crime prevention isn't the purpose of law ENFORCEMENT nor the JUSTICE system. Those two systems are to enforce and punish, period.

Justice != rehab.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Severe punishment works, i.e. life in prison and the death penalty. It doesn't make crime go away, it makes criminals go away.

There's just zero truth to that.

Criminal A is replaced with criminal B. They are indistinguishable to the victims.

 

[SV2]

Fewer laws and fewer cops would be step 1. We've gone in the other direction with zero impact for too long.

How will that reduce crime?

Punishments would concetrate more on making the party who suffered a loss whole again.

What about victimless crimes, or crimes against scociety?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

How will that reduce crime?

Fewer laws to break = less crime.

Fewer resources spent on police/prisons/courts = improved economy.

What about victimless crimes, or crimes against scociety?

Victimless crime is an oxymoron, exactly the kind of laws that need to go away.

What do you mean by crimes against society? Homicide etc.? I stick with prisons for them.

 

[Dragon14]

Real solution to crime??? Torture.

You would see a decrease in rape and murder like history has never seen if torture were implemented.

I'm not talking about torture to get information, which is compartively mild. I'm talking about a pair of pliers and a blowtorch... for WEEKS and MONTHS.

Prison time is not an effective deterrant. Death is not an effective deterrant (because it is the unknown... not the concrete, as pain is). Torture, on the other hand, is real pain and suffering, that no "tough guy" can handle.

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

 

[SV2]

petty crime exists because people do not fear the law... I agree, reduce the laws, thats fine.. But punish the fuck out of people who break the laws that do exist.

 

[javaguru]

Here is a problem with many of the suggestions;

1. The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

2. Draconian laws create bad outcomes detrimental to society.

Example, Person speeding and loses control of their car killing the passenger. Tried and convicted of manslaughter, death sentence. Now suppose this person is a doctor making 250k+ per year. You've removed a productive member of society with valuable skills and instead of paying taxes on his massive income he has become an economic parasite for the 10+ years it will take to execute him. How does this benefit society, how is this justice? BTW, I know very well the law has nothing to do with a just outcome but at least it should have an outcome beneficial to society as a whole.

Also, extreme punishments do NOT deter criminals and have little effect on crime rates and there is a massive amount of data on the subject. Murders per capita have not decreased by any substantial amount since the institution of the death penalty, the most serious punishment available.

Non violent crime punishments should focus on compensating victims and victimless crimes should become decriminalized(perhaps fines but no jail time). Violent criminals need to be incapacitated with prison terms. The current system of crime and punishment is a vast economic sinkhole. The alternative system would make victims whole while punishing criminals at the same time and decrease taxpayer burden.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

petty crime exists because people do not fear the law... I agree, reduce the laws, thats fine.. But punish the fuck out of people who break the laws that do exist.

Ever use AS? Should we punish the fuck out of you? Criminal.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Here is a problem with many of the suggestions;

1. The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

2. Draconian laws create bad outcomes detrimental to society.

Example, Person speeding and loses control of their car killing the passenger. Tried and convicted of manslaughter, death sentence. Now suppose this person is a doctor making 250k+ per year. You've removed a productive member of society with valuable skills and instead of paying taxes on his massive income he has become an economic parasite for the 10+ years it will take to execute him. How does this benefit society, how is this justice? BTW, I know very well the law has nothing to do with a just outcome but at least it should have an outcome beneficial to society as a whole.

Also, extreme punishments do NOT deter criminals and have little effect on crime rates and there is a massive amount of data on the subject. Murders per capita have not decreased by any substantial amount since the institution of the death penalty, the most serious punishment available.

Non violent crime punishments should focus on compensating victims and victimless crimes should become decriminalized(perhaps fines but no jail time). Violent criminals need to be incapacitated with prison terms. The current system of crime and punishment is a vast economic sinkhole. The alternative system would make victims whole while punishing criminals at the same time and decrease taxpayer burden.

Put your brain away and go back to being a sheep.

 

[crmdogg]

thievs suck ass and deserve whatever punishment they recieve.-Josh

 

[javaguru]

thievs suck ass and deserve whatever punishment they recieve.-Josh

Just think how much money he is "stealing" from the taxpayers with fifty years of free room and board by stealing a few thousand dollars from a retail store.

 

[rsnoble]

50x$40,000 yearly prison cost= $2million. Theres way to many non english speaking fucks in that state that dont even know this law exists. I doubt it helps. And I seriously doubt the cost will offset. Ca is just one step ahead of everyone else in enforcing the police state that we live in.

 

[boss]

Cost to retail outlets for shoplifted goods: $1000? maybe? $3000 max.

Cost to taxpayers to incarcerate this guy for 50 years: $2M

And we wonder why CA is $38B in debt, recalling the governor, and on the verge of economic collpase.

well thats the other thing i was thinking about. when is enough...enough??? too many petty guys doing time and costing too much than they are worth.

 

[manny78]

Real solution to crime??? Torture.

You would see a decrease in rape and murder like history has never seen if torture were implemented.

I'm not talking about torture to get information, which is compartively mild. I'm talking about a pair of pliers and a blowtorch... for WEEKS and MONTHS.

Prison time is not an effective deterrant. Death is not an effective deterrant (because it is the unknown... not the concrete, as pain is). Torture, on the other hand, is real pain and suffering, that no "tough guy" can handle.

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

They tried that, 500 years ago and he didnt do any shit. You just can't go against human nature.

 

[manny78]

Also I hope you guys know that AAS possession can be punish the same way as shoplifting..... ?

I'm truly not surprised at all, California is the most fucked place in America. Christ it's even worse than Canada, which is not something to be proud of...

 

[javaguru]

Put your brain away and go back to being a sheep.

LMAO, I would have thought people on a board with a major focus on AAS would be a little more sensitive to this type of issue. I wonder how many small time steroid dealers have been put away under this three strike system?

 

[boss]

LMAO, I would have thought people on a board with a major focus on AAS would be a little more sensitive to this type of issue. I wonder how many small time steroid dealers have been put away under this three strike system?

bro it sounds like if you wipe your ass the wrong way you will get 50 also, and a boyfriend called bubba........and he comes free of charge. no cost to tax payers.

 

[javaguru]

Politicians have been running on the "tough on crime" platform for over thirty years yet the street crime rate generally rises and falls based purely on economic conditions. It's easy to demonize drug users and other non-violent criminals because defending their rights is unpopular with the puritanical veneer of our society. The brutalization of of non violent criminals shows exactly how unenlightened we are as a society.

 

[jackangel]

The question of crime and punishment in America aside, I think 50 years of prison for shoplifting 3 times is entirely unreasonable. It amazes me how many people think differently? He deserves it for the stupidity alone? Is that right? I would ask how each of you would rule in a case like this, if you were the judge, because it's a bit different when you're not posting on EF. However, that would be purely hypothetical, because unfortunately it seems that judges do not have discretion.

 

[javaguru]

Yep, judges have little in the way of discretion with these types of laws becaus eof mandatory sentencing. Doesn't matter if you're a three time rapist or a three time shoplifter. Which is why they are total bullshit and ALL judges hate mandatory sentencing.

 

[Code]

Yep, judges have little in the way of discretion with these types of laws becaus eof mandatory sentencing. Doesn't matter if you're a three time rapist or a three time shoplifter. Which is why they are total bullshit and ALL judges hate mandatory sentencing.

ALL judges hate them eh? Isn't that the type of blanket statement you liberals would normally want to avoid?

 

[javaguru]

ALL judges hate them eh? Isn't that the type of blanket statement you liberals would normally want to avoid?

LMAO, by what standard am I a liberal? I have known quite a few judges and have brought the subject up on occasion and not one of them has felt anything but contempt for mandatory sentencing. When asked they all agreed it seemed to be the consensus among their colleagues that mandatory sentencing was a bad idea. I've actually been in court when a judge was obvioulsy frustrated as hell over a senetence he was required by law to hand down. The fact a hardcore gang banger slinging rocks to twelve year olds at the park has the same minimum sentence as a single mother of three supplementing her paycheck by selling pot to her co-workers is a bad outcome.

 

[Code]

LMAO, by what standard am I a liberal? I have known quite a few judges and have brought the subject up on occasion and not one of them has felt anything but contempt for mandatory sentencing. When asked they all agreed it seemed to be the consensus among their colleagues that mandatory sentencing was a bad idea. I've actually been in court when a judge was obvioulsy frustrated as hell over a senetence he was required by law to hand down. The fact a hardcore gang banger slinging rocks to twelve year olds at the park has the same minimum sentence as a single mother of three supplementing her paycheck by selling pot to her co-workers is a bad outcome.

Quite a few = ALL?

Oh, ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[javaguru]

Quite a few = ALL?

If you read my post their consensus was that their profession disliked mandatory sentencing. Do all judges dislike mandatory sentencing, probably not." Therefore, I will amend my statement to the following, "The clear majority of judges believe mandatory sentencing needs to be reformed." Eighty- six percent of Federal Judges believe minimum mandatory sentencing guidlines need to be re-evaluated.

Now, do you agree or disagree with this and why;

The fact a hardcore gang banger slinging rocks to twelve year olds at the park has the same minimum sentence as a single mother of three supplementing her paycheck by selling pot to her co-workers is a bad outcome.

 

[javaguru]

Federal judge resigns, calling judicial system unjust
Reprinted from the Associated Press
June 25, 2003

NEW YORK -- A federal judge said Tuesday he is quitting what he called an unjust criminal justice system, fed up with Congress' quest to boost prison sentences and prevent judges from deciding how long someone is imprisoned.

"Congress is mandating things simply because they want to show how tough they are on crime with no sense of whether this makes sense or is meaningful," U.S. District Judge John S. Martin said in an interview
with The Associated Press.

The result, he said, is a slew of lengthy prison sentences for low-level drug dealers "who society failed at every step."

"Sentences should be just. We shouldn't be putting everybody in jail for the rest of their life," Martin said.

While many judges have criticized sentencing guidelines, it is unusual for a judge to publicly cite the frustrations of the job in stepping down.

Martin, 68, conceded he also wants to make more money after serving for 13 years in a judgeship that pays less than second-year associates make at many law firms. Federal judges earn $154,700 a year.

But he said the prime motivation came April 30, when President Bush signed a bill forcing federal judges to strictly follow sentencing guidelines.

Martin said he supports guidelines for the purpose of ensuring uniform sentencing nationwide, but added that Congress was going beyond that and forcing judges to impose harsh sentences on defendants who don't deserve them.

"While I might have stayed on despite the inadequate pay, I no longer want to be part of our unjust criminal justice system," he wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday in The New York Times.

A one-time federal prosecutor, Martin said he plans to complete his caseload by summer's end and re-enter private practice. He said he is considering organizing former federal judges and top prosecutors to lobby Congress to make guidelines more sensible.

Martin has earned a reputation as a judge capable of stern sentences: In sentencing one violent gang member to life, Martin ordered the man held in solitary confinement and said he would have imposed death if he could.

 

[Code]

Eighty- six percent of Federal Judges believe minimum mandatory sentencing guidlines need to be re-evaluated.

Source?

 

[javaguru]

Under mandatory minimum and habitual offender sentencing, prosecutors, not judges, have the discretion to decide whether to reduce a charge, whether to accept or deny a plea bargain, whether to reward or deny a defendant's "substantial assistance" or cooperation in the prosecution of someone else, and ultimately, to determine what the final sentence will be. (1)

By 1993, 50 senior federal judges had exercised their prerogative and refused to hear drug cases. Many conservative, Reagan-appointed federal judges denounced the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimums as draconian miscarriages of justice. Federal District Judge Stanley Marshall remarked, "I've always been considered a fairly harsh sentencer, but it's killing me that I'm sending so many low-level offenders away for all this time." (2)

A Gallup poll of 350 state and 49 federal judges who belong to the American Bar Association found 90 percent opposed to (and only 8 percent in favor of) the federal mandatory minimums for drug offenses. (3)

Under mandatory minimum sentencing and habitual offender schemes, high-level drug offenders continually plea-bargain their way to reduced sentences, while low-level offenders, with no information to trade for leniency, are sentenced to unusually long terms.
The average sentence for a first time, non-violent drug offender is longer than the average sentence for rape, child molestation, bank robbery or manslaughter. (4)

The RAND Corporation states "Though it is too early to make a final judgment, RAND found that three strikes and truth-in-sentencing laws have had little significant impact on crime and arrest rates. According to the Uniform Crime Reports, states with neither a three strikes nor a truth-in-sentencing law had the lowest rates of index crimes, whereas index crime rates were highest in states with both types of get-tough laws." (5)

Mandatory minimum sentencing schemes contribute to America's prison building boom. With the national prison population at roughly 2 million, nearly 500,000 of whom are drug law violators, (6) federal and state governments have been forced to build an ever increasing number of prisons to house what former drug czar Barry McCaffrey has called "America's internal gulag." (7) From 1987 to 1998 state spending on corrections increased by 30 percent while spending on higher education decreased by 18.2 percent. (8)

Source List;

1. Caulkins, J., et al., Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences: Throwing Away the Key or the Taxpayers' Money? Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1997, p. 24.

2. Cris Carmody, "Revolt to Sentencing Is Gaining Momentum," National Law Journal, May 17, 1993, p. 10.

3. "The Verdict is In," American Bar Association Journal, Oct. 1993, p. 78.

4. The Consequences of Mandatory Minimums, Federal Judicial Center Report, 1994.

5. Turner, Susan, RAND Corporation Criminal Justice Program, Justice Research & Statistics Association, "Impact of Truth-in-Sentencing and Three Strikes Legislation on Crime," Crime and Justice Atlas 2000, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Justice, June 2000, p. 10.

6. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1998, Page 462, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999.

7. Timothy Egan, "The Nation: Hard Time; Less Crime, more Criminals," The New York Times, March 7, 1999.

8. National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), (April 1996), 1995 State Expenditures Report, P. 55.

 

[Code]

Source List;

At least you've done your research.
I don't care one way or the other, if you get caught for a 3rd felony you deserve whatever you get.

Selling pot as a single mother or selling crack to kids...let them both room together in jail.

 

[javaguru]

I would also like to point out that no real "intent to distribute" is required under mandatory sentencing guidlines. If you have X amount of Drug Y you are given the same senetnce as a regular dealer. The people on this board who use very heavy cycles and buy in bulk should take that into consideration. I can't believe this stat doesn't bother you.

The average sentence for a first time, non-violent drug offender is longer than the average sentence for rape, child molestation, bank robbery or manslaughter. (4)