14 replies to this topic

[Saint_Michael]

For this story to make sense you have to know about California's 3 Strike Law, which basically means after getting busted 3 times, regardless if you stole a candy bar the third time you can get a sentence for like 1 degree murder. Which is a life sentence and so our story begins. Basically this women got a her laptop and some other stuff stolen from a guy she was seeing online (mistake 1) and then one day gave her phone number (mistake 2) and address (mistake 3) to meet up. Well after the dude played her for a chump and went on there merry old way, she decided to sleep at a friends house because she figured out the dude was playing her for a fool. Well he came back and robbed her house and of course stole her computer then pawned it. Well hte cops found the computer and then later on the guy who stole it.

Well it seems this guy had two priors which included stealing a womans car and something else and since he lives he California, he is placed under that 3 strikes law and so the judge sentences him to 31 years to life. I can see the stealing, breaking and entering and selling of property he stole, but I think the life sentence is bit extreme in this case, I give the guy 10-15 tops for this, Of course dude plead his case and the court didn't by, but like many other's who still hate this law after who knows how many years I still believe it is cruel and unusual punishment.

So you think a petty thief deserves a murder's sentence or should he get something smaller, say like the sentence I mentioned?

SOURCE
Here

[master_bacarra]

i think a life sentence (or probably a death sentence) is too much for a materialistic crime. had the objects stolen been returned to the rightful owner, i think the charges shouldn't be as exaggerated as that. the owner could probably charge for emotional damages (or whatever other things that might have been damaged along the way) and the convict should have some jail time (i'm thinking five to ten years is the maximum).

it's like saying, "one wrong move and you'll pay with your life", which sounds to me like paranoia on loose.

[AceGirl]

It would make more sense if they got the laptop back and made the man pay inconvinence charges. That would probably satisfy both parties. Its not fair for the guy to go to prision if there are so many thiefs out there getting away.

[galexcd]

I do think that the 3 strikes law is a bit excessive, but I'm sure the guy knew about the law, and If I was caught twice stealing something, I wouldn't really want to attempt to steal something else if I risked getting life. Don't get me wrong, I think that the law is very unfair, and I don't think he deserves it, but he seriously should have been smart enough to have seen this coming.

[dastrophy]

I can see the logic behind it: it is a fairly big deterrent to stop people from doing "annoying" crimes all the time..... especially since it is so hard to get a thief to pay inconvenience charges: where do you expect him to get the money?
It is sort of a good idea, in that sense, but also it is rather harsh for someone to get prison for life for minor crimes, and on top of this it gives no chance for someone to change....
If he was forced to work/pay his rent to make sure he wasn't any cost to tax payers


However, in England where I live, this is not such a good idea at all since the prisons are too full: even if he did get a life sentence, he would be released after a couple of years to make room for the murderers....the current government really has no idea!

[sylenzednuke]

alex7h3pr0gr4m3r, on Jul 2 2007, 11:20 PM, said:

I do think that the 3 strikes law is a bit excessive, but I'm sure the guy knew about the law, and If I was caught twice stealing something, I wouldn't really want to attempt to steal something else if I risked getting life. Don't get me wrong, I think that the law is very unfair, and I don't think he deserves it, but he seriously should have been smart enough to have seen this coming.

I agree with Alex here. That thief should've been smart enough to realize that whatever his crime will be, he'll be sentenced for a life-time according to that law. I can't think why such a law still didn't stop him from doing all this.

But on the other side, I am completely against this law, it just sounds stupid to me to be honest. Those 3 crimes should be atleast taken into consideration and not just their numbers. I mean stealing and stuff? I don't think a life-time is fair for that! Those 3 "strikes" should be first reviewed first atleast if the law can't be taken back. Or it'd be better to just abolish this law according to me 'cause I really find it disgusting. 3 strikes and a life-sentence, is this some sort of a joke or something? Sorry for sounding like this but I didn't ever expect law to get this stupid.

[mojoman]

I agree to that its harsh, but it sets an example not to commit crimes and that there will be consequences for your actions

[cwconline]

I did some research it's NOT THEFT it is FELONIES there is a big diffrence and besides, stealing anything under 15.00$ is non-prosuctiable and is a maximum of an over night stay. So, it only counts towards felonies.

[Saint_Michael]

Well when this law went into affect someone did steal a candy bar and got about 5-10 years because it was his third strike and stealing regardless of what the item was, is still considered a felony in the rules of the 3 Strikes law. If you search a bit more California laws are a lot stricter then you would believe. If you click this linkp and if you look at number 18 and 19 he can be nailed for it. Of course I had do some searching about the candy story and it is discussed Here that someone did get tagged with the 3 strikes law. So it doesn't matter what you do on that 3 strike you will get the max, messed as it maybe that's what will happen.

As for this guy, most of his felonies are covered by the 3 strikes law so he will get the max and then some.

[CinnamorollTK]

They should give him 10-20 years. If that would work, then they should move the law to other states. I figure the costs will be too much for the government. (I heard thats why probation was created - so that they don't have to fill the jails to the maximum.)