TexasCHLforum.com

I wanted to start a discussion about Mandatory Minimum Sentencing.

Years ago California passed a "three strikes" law.

"Three strikes" was a catchy slogan, and is a good rule for baseball, but not for the law.

Over the years, politicians, including many conservatives, have pushed for these laws for several reasons:

Support of these laws shows that they are "tough on crime".

Some of the rational is:

The laws will prevent "bleeding heart" liberal judges from giving criminals a "slap on the wrist".

I am against these laws that restrict the discretion of trial judges when sentencing people to prison.

I have to trust in the wisdom of judges to administer justice as they see fit for each case as appropriate to the particular circumstances.

Case in point, the Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in prison for firing a "warning shot" at her estranged husband.

What say you?

Can you link to the Fl case? What are the facts of the CA three strikes law?

To have an intelligent discussion we gotta all be on the same page. ;)

Excellent topic for discussion.

I believe in the 3 strikes law.

The reason is because of judges making wacky decisions, such as no jail time for the affluenza case and the case against the DuPont heir who did something heinous to his own daughter, was not sentenced to prison because he "would not fair well" in prison. Granted, it may have been their first time to get caught...

People should be aware by their 2nd law break what the consequences will be.

the improper application of the mandatory sentence requires a prosecutor to improperly pursue charges. The judge still has discretion to evaluate if the prosecution is improperly applying the law, right?

jbarn wrote:Can you link to the Fl case? What are the facts of the CA three strikes law?

To have an intelligent discussion we gotta all be on the same page. ;)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... ense-laws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas_Blaze wrote:the improper application of the mandatory sentence requires a prosecutor to improperly pursue charges. The judge still has discretion to evaluate if the prosecution is improperly applying the law, right?

I don't think so. That is one reason I don't like it. If improperly charged, the judges hands can be tied when sentencing the person.

The mandatory sentence is akin to "zero tolerance" policies.

They remove discretion, reasoning and common sense from decisions.

CHLLady wrote:Excellent topic for discussion.

I believe in the 3 strikes law.

The reason is because of judges making wacky decisions, such as no jail time for the affluenza case and the case against the DuPont heir who did something heinous to his own daughter, was not sentenced to prison because he "would not fair well" in prison. Granted, it may have been their first time to get caught...

People should be aware by their 2nd law break what the consequences will be.

Maybe the judge should be changed rather than the law.

I'm opposed to all mandatory sentencing requirements or even guidelines. It's not the legislature's job to play judge anymore than it is a judge's job to legislate from the bench. The very few unreasonably light sentences handed down by small number of judges are not justification to remove discretion from the person who heard the testimony and saw the evidence.

"Three strikes" is no better than "zero tolerance" on gun issues.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm opposed to all mandatory sentencing requirements or even guidelines. It's not the legislature's job to play judge anymore than it is a judge's job to legislate from the bench. The very few unreasonably light sentences handed down by small number of judges are not justification to remove discretion from the person who heard the testimony and saw the evidence.

"Three strikes" is no better than "zero tolerance" on gun issues.

Chas.

Although, I must say that cases apparently at the extreme, like these cited below, and I of course know no more than what hit the media, cause me to rethink the issue a bit when it comes to certain heinous crimes. I have a reputation of having been rather progressive (if that is the right word) in the area of penology, to the extent that I have never sent a convicted defendant to a prison which I had not first visited and toured. What little I know about the first case I cite below honestly makes me feel that Mr. Richards might be well-served by joining the general population of a really tough prison. Not only might that smirk be removed from his face, but he might also learn what rape is all about. I must agree with the judge's suspicion that "he would not fare well."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/justice/d ... rape-case/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/us/texas-affluenza-teen/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm opposed to all mandatory sentencing requirements or even guidelines. It's not the legislature's job to play judge anymore than it is a judge's job to legislate from the bench. The very few unreasonably light sentences handed down by small number of judges are not justification to remove discretion from the person who heard the testimony and saw the evidence.

"Three strikes" is no better than "zero tolerance" on gun issues.

Chas.

Some of the folks are quick to point fingers at school administrators when, say, a kiddoh receives the state legislature-mandate punishment for possessing something innocuous like a small pocket knife, when the administrators are following the law. Want to change all these outrages? Change the law, else we all have to live with the results of these well-meaning laws.

CHLLady wrote:Excellent topic for discussion.

I believe in the 3 strikes law.

What IS the three strikes law>

WildBill wrote:

jbarn wrote:Can you link to the Fl case? What are the facts of the CA three strikes law?

To have an intelligent discussion we gotta all be on the same page. ;)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... ense-laws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, I had not seen that. for those just glancing, it is not a three strikes law, but a mandatory minimum if a gun is used in crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know what a three strikes law is, but each state has different guidelines. You referenced CA, so I thought you might have specifics.

jbarn wrote:

WildBill wrote:

jbarn wrote:Can you link to the Fl case? What are the facts of the CA three strikes law?

To have an intelligent discussion we gotta all be on the same page. ;)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... ense-laws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, I had not seen that. for those just glancing, it is not a three strikes law, but a mandatory minimum if a gun is used in crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know what a three strikes law is, but each state has different guidelines. You referenced CA, so I thought you might have specifics.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/20142.htm

jmra wrote:

jbarn wrote:

WildBill wrote:

jbarn wrote:Can you link to the Fl case? What are the facts of the CA three strikes law?

To have an intelligent discussion we gotta all be on the same page. ;)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... ense-laws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, I had not seen that. for those just glancing, it is not a three strikes law, but a mandatory minimum if a gun is used in crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know what a three strikes law is, but each state has different guidelines. You referenced CA, so I thought you might have specifics.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/20142.htm

The Fox link is for the Florida "Warning Shot" Bill, not three strikes. This proposed law deals with restrictions of judges when sentencing criminals.

Since I haven't read the bill, I am not sure exactly what it does. From what I have heard, it may create more problems than it solves.

I am against all such laws, not just "three strikes" type laws. All of these type of laws are the subject of this thread. I just gave two examples.

The new link is the so-called CA "Three Strikes" Law. See Proposition 36 text for the original and as amended in 2012. At the time of my original post

I was not aware that it had be changed again in 2012. It is very complicated and confusing.

http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/ ... est=prop36" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It looks I'm in the minority but I think it's appropriate for the legislature to set both minimum and maximum penalties for different levels of offenses.