Talk:Three-strikes law/Archive 1

two time loser
This term would make more sense if three time loser' were used somewhere in the article for contextRJFJR 23:25, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, it already makes sense as it stands. The person is called a two-time loser because of the ubiquitous joke that a criminal is just someone who had a bad day (in the sense that when incriminating contraband is found on them, they always say "it's not mine" even when it really is theirs). So someone who had two bad days must be a loser (in the dual senses of being really unlucky or just really pathetic), because now they are one more bad day from going to prison for 25 years to life.

Actually, it's closer to life, considering that the California Supreme Court in January 2005 just gave the parole board carte blanche. The parole board can deny parole for any reason including the nature of the original crime and the defendant's failure to take responsibility for his actions and stop claiming he's innocent. Which means that a lot of defendants on indeterminate sentences just found their sentences turned into de facto life sentences.--Coolcaesar 08:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added some additional comments on the strange results that result by applying one size fits all sentencing schemes. The source is 1170.12 Cal.P.C.--Veniceslug1 03:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Lack of consistency in "violent or serious"
I think the article is not consistent throughout the text. I read in the middle that felonies must be considered "violent" or "serious". I am pretty sure how to gauge the violence of a crime, however, I have a hard time conceiving of a felony not deemed "serious"

Now, I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with the actual text of the law, but the contradiction comes in the next section where previous convictions of shoplifting or possession of drugs can be used against you (when is that considered serious or not?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.140.240 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The contradiction arises from how California has "wobbler" crimes where the sole reason for the elevation of a crime from a misdemeanor to a felony is the fact that the suspect has already been previously convicted at least one or more times of that crime as a misdemeanor. That is, if the crime had been committed as a first-time crime, it would have been charged as a misdemeanor.  For example, if Leandro Andrade had never been convicted of anything in his life before he stole Disney videotapes on two occasions from a K-Mart, he would have probably been convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to a few weeks in jail or even probation.  It is his prior criminal record which was the basis for treating his petty theft of videotapes as a felony (even though the actual harm on this particular occasion was rather small).  In contrast, speaking hypothetically, if he had robbed a bank, nonviolently, of a million dollars, most people would agree that the amount and target would make such a robbery a serious felony.  --Coolcaesar 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The California Three Strikes Law refers in its terms to previously existing laws that enhanced sentences based on prior convictions. One of these law enhanced convictions for what it defined as "violent felonies" the other for "serious felonies". It is the law under which one is convicted, and the actual seriousness or violence in the acts, that determines if it meets the laws terms. Veniceslug1 03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger with Mandatory Sentencing

 * Discussion moved to Talk:Mandatory sentencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewlyahoocom (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

California law
Btw Veniceslug1, why does the California law constitute a three strikes law if judicial discretion is retained? If the law is not mandatory in nature, its either not a three strikes law or the scope of the definition needs to be expanded to explain this aspect (aka "when a mandatory sentencing law is not mandatory"). 203.198.237.30 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The scope of the definition needs to be expanded - Texas also had/has (I'm unsure of its current status) a "recidivist statute" aka "Three-strikes law" which I don't believe was mandatory (see my comment at Talk:Mandatory sentencing for more information). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher (talk • contribs) 14:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

5/23/05
I edited the following lines, which originally read as follows:

"Additional unfairness can result under some statutory schemes where two prior convictions can result from a single act."

That word "unfairness" is a biased term in what should be an objective article. Many people would not see this as being at all unfair.

"Therefore, a sentence of 25 years to life will actually be a life sentence in most cases, because the parole board is unlikely to grant parole for the vast majority of eligible prisoners."

This is laughably inaccurate. State parole boards are putting prisoners of all types back on the streets at record paces right now. In many states the parole board is a veritable revolving door whose mission is to cut costs in the correctional system instead of guaranteeing public safety. There is no sound basis at all for the proposition that "the parole board is unlikely to grant parole for the vast majority of eligible prisoners." In fact, the reverse is true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.168 (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me get you a napkin, you seem to be spitting up rhetoric. 64.160.121.83 08:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As the US is locking people away at a higher rate than ever - unless everybody is jailed for life, each year you will get more and more people released from prison. Parole board releases will logically go up when there are more prisoners to be released. In addition filling up prisons with 3 time losers is a very good way of meaning first time (possibly violent) felons will have to be released early simply to make room. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.234.214 (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What kind of crazy hillbilly state do you live in? It's obviously not California; our parole board is notorious for its stubborn refusal to grant parole to all but the most saintly and reformed of prisoners.  The governor has the power to fire and replace parole board members at any time, so they are understandably reluctant to release anyone unless they are confident that the chance of recidivism is zero.


 * That's why our prisons are notoriously overcrowded and a federal district judge just took over the broken prison healthcare system last year. We DO NOT release people to make room for the three-time losers like Andrade and Ewing.  Instead, we just keep cramming more and more convicts into the Department of Corrections system, in every possible way imaginable (even old prison gyms have been converted into giant holding pens for less dangerous inmates).


 * Also, I should point out that in many states and the federal system, parole has been abolished altogether. Either you get out or you don't.  There is no discretion.  --Coolcaesar 06:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

POV
I removed the POV Section tag. After reading the article and looking at the discussion above, it appears that the POV concerns had been sufficiently addressed to remove the tag. As an aside, I think the "Controversial Results" section could and should be merged with the Criticisms section.Qball6 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag is warranted, the article is filled with unsourced statements, and anecdotal evidence all criticizing the law. This article needs to be cleaned up, better sourced and the POV issue must be fixed. --ozoneliar 5 September 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.45.239 (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 11:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no reason that I can see to limit the coverage of this article only to "three strikes" habitual offender laws. It seems arbitrary. This is an inherently US-centric concept as well. &lt;el eland /talk edits &gt; 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the move. There is enough information and controversy about three strikes laws, as a separate legal concept unto themselves, to justify an article.  It is US-centric because, to my knowledge, other nations do not use the three strikes model.  That being said, I think a new broader article on habitual offender laws is an excellent idea.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I agree the article is Americentric, but only because it is a new concept (originating in 1993) that has only taken root in America. However, it is, in my opinion, distinct from other habitual offender laws, even in the Unites States. To my understanding, there have been laws that allowed the possibility of imposition of life sentences, however, with the three strikes law, the sentence comes into force as mandatory upon the third eligabile conviction. Also, the fact that in some juridictions it would mandate a life sentence for crimes that would only carry a maximum of a few years otherwise, a tenfold or more increase in severity, makes it uniquely controversial. Thus as a concpet I feel three strikes distinct from habitual offender laws in general, and notable for it's effect on the law and the public debate in the United States. Homersmyid 11:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV problems again
Three Strikes was enacted in March 1994. Valley State Prison for Women opened in May 1995. Kern Valley State Prison opened June 2005.SATF Corcoran opened August 1997. Pleasant Valley State Prison opened Nov. 1994. High Desert State Prison opened September 1995. Salinas Valley State Prison was opened May 1996. These 6 prisons incarcerate about 34,000 inmates and cost over 900 million dollars to operate each year. California department of corrections web site

The article was stable for a long time and now in the past week it looks like the three strikes partisans are going at each other again. So now the article has some really weird POV slants whiplashing left and right. At this point I think we need to move to the "CITE EVERYTHING" approach which brought the edit wars in Lawyer under control. If the article doesn't get fixed soon, I'm going to start throwing out weasel words and unsupported original research left and right until we have a neutral, stable article again. --Coolcaesar 21:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - this is my first time coming to this article and it reads very POV. The benefits in California section reads like an apologist wrote it. I think a POV tag is warranted. JakiChan 03:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Along with that I wonder if Verifiability would preclude the use of http://www.threestrikes.org/ (specifically the report http://www.threestrikes.org/TenYearReport04.pdf) as a valid citation as it is a self-published site. This is cited in the section "Benefits of "3 Strikes" in California" in the second paragraph which starts "Another common criticism" (oddly enough in the benefits section). --PurpleFlux 20:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The data in the 10 year report is accurate or not is the key point in this debate. So far there is no report that has data to contradict the 10 year report. The flaw of counting minor offenses should be corrected in the Three Strikes Law. But if the 10 year report holds up, then the judgment could be on the Three Strike side. Jimbaron 11:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is rabidly pro-three strikes and wildly POV. Every argument in the criticism section is followed by a very authoratative "The refutation to this argument is..." Three strikes may be a stunning success, I have no idea, but right now this article has as much rhetorical credibility as your average Holocaust denier. --Kajerm 02:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An idea needs to be supported by theoretical consistency and factual data. Since a theory may sound like a rhetoric to the people who stand on the other side, we must resort to the factual data. The 10 year report is the major factual data for the "Three Strikes" proponents. If the report is inaccurate in numbers, it should be easy to disprove them since they are publicly accessible information. Jimbaron 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed purge of original research, unverifiable garbage, and weasel words
There is a lot of original research, nonneutral statements, unverifiable garbage, weasel words, etc. that has been inserted into this article over the past six months by partisans on either side of the three strikes debate, in violation of all Wikipedia core policies (What Wikipedia is not, No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability). I am proposing to strip out all the unsourced garbage on both sides and reduce this article back to a neutral summary of the statutes and cases, without getting into the messy debate about whether three strikes is good or bad.

I am going to be purging this article in three or four weeks when I have the time around Christmas. So if you want a controversial statement to stay, please add a citation to a reliable published source like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, where there is a neutral set of eyeballs (called an editor) who filters out errors before text gets published in hard copy. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, please mark it as needing a citation and wait a while to give us a chance to add citations before removing those sections. Ummonk 00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Benefits Section
First off, there is some confussion about three strikes in Califronia. Only about 8 thousand people are serving sentences of twenty five to life for commiting a thrid strike. The "three strikes law" is the name for a bill in Claifrornia that also calls for increased prison time, but not life, for second offenses. So while about 100 thousand people have been affected by the provisions of the bill, the vast majority have been for 2nd offenses, which is outside the scope of this article. Source: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/cj_primer/cj_primer_013107.aspx

Secondly, the benefits section needs serious work. The main argument about a drop from 8 million to 6 million is bad statistics at best. The three strikes law only applies to people with 2 or more previous convivtions, so unless that 25% drop came only from that particular group, and only because they were locked up or feared a third strike, and not due to any other cause, then it's bunk. It's like saying in 1993 Bill Clinton became president, and x fewer murders happened while he was president then in the previous 8 years, thus Bill Clinton saved x number of peoples' lives.

Otherwise, the "benefits" are just responses to criticism, no actual benefit is given. There are a few benefits I can imagine. 1) A study estimated that people facing a third strike are less likely to commit a crime. http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/ThreeStrikes.pdf 2) There must be a rough estimate of reactivation rate, thus there must be an estimate of how many crimes have been prevented by lockng those people up 3) While there are cases of seemingly excessive efforcement, there are also cases of multiple murders, multiple rapists, and others being locked up under the law. Homersmyid 12:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with you the benefits section is problematic. The benefits section is a biased, shows strong POV, and also seems to constitute original research.  That is, it attempts to synthesize statistics to support very controversial conclusions in the kind of way which is normally done in original research.  That kind of synthesis is inappropriate for Wikipedia unless it can be supported by citations to verifiable, reliable sources (e.g., peer-reviewed criminology journals).  The whole section fails to comply with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:V, and a number of other policies.  --Coolcaesar 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whenever I look at that chart in the "benefits" section, I think, "Wow, Three Strikes, a law so effective that crime started going down months before it was even passed." The entire point is ridiculous - crime all around the US started going down about that time. 74.251.3.34 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section, “perverse incentive”
I've removed the final phrase of this section, "Therefore the so called 'perverse incentive' has never been proved to exist.", because this is a POV statement. 1. Because variation in criminal motives is huge, if not endless, you can not make this statement, especially "never been proved to exist" (sic). The 3-strikes law might scare off some, or it might let others with already 2 strikes on their record, adopt a devil may care attitude. One cannot say with certainty which way this will go. The argument offered in the paragraph is weak, since before committing a crime like burglary or hold-ups, SOME criminals DO make up their mind on what to do when things go wrong. Without a 3 strike law, these will decide not to shoot or kill because they reason that it's better to get caught and receive a lighter sentence, than it's to kill the cop and take a chance on getting a life sentence.
 * in short, everybody will react differently

2. Since no large scale, statiscally significant research has been done into precisely this question we can not make the absolute statement that 'perverse incentive' doesn't exist. 3. The existence of sayings like "Might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb" and "Devil may care" attitude indicates that such reasonings are well-known, throughout society. During the preparation for a crime, these consideration might very well enter the thought process of a criminal, even if at the time of the actual shooting, his/her reasoning capabilities might be diminished.

Aside from all this, the actual refutation in that paragraph seems weak. It comes down to: "Criminals are crazy, who knows what they'll do?" The crazy argument in assigning motive in your foes is most of the time wrong since it plain lazy. It absolves the necessity of doing some hard thinking. (Most notably so in the 9/11 case). Besides, if most criminals were crazy, no amount of 'strikes' law would stop them. In that case, it would be best to drop the 3 strikes law to prevent still reasoning criminals from shooting the arresting cops/surprised home-owners. We cannot say with certainty how much 'still reasoning criminals' exists, but it seems highly unlikely that ALL criminals are stupid and crazy. So, if all crime is committed on impulse, then why a 3 strike law? Why not a 2 strike or 5 strike law? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Tjoe-Nij (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Strange results" --> "Controversial results"
I don't believe the section title "Strange results" and the section therein conform to the NPOV policy. Juansmith 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue was controversial enough that the U.S. Supreme Court was willing to grant cert, so it should definitely be mentioned. The reason it was controversial at the international level was that no other industrialized First World country sentences convicts to such long sentences for commensurate crimes.  I think the quotation of O'Connor's reasoning makes it neutral enough.  What exactly do you find nonneutral about it?  --Coolcaesar 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll grant that it's controversial, and should be included, however "strange" is a borderline term which may violate NPOV. In addition, some aspects of how the section is written seem to pass judgment on the law. Some words are italicized for emphasis, which would seem to indicate the tone and perception of the author as he wrote about each idea. Also, it seems inappropriate to include what is clearly critical language in a section called "History", especially when there is a "Criticism" section lower in the article. I could see the "strange results" section being merged with "Criticism", but it would have to be altered somewhat to conform to NPOV. Juansmith 06:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I see the section title was changed from "strange results" to "controversial results". It's a good start, to be sure, but that section is still in need of a rewrite to conform the NPOV and quality standards. Juansmith 07:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I reworded a lot of the section and deleted what I felt to be unneccesary information (I felt there was far too much exposition on some of the laws or sentences mentioned) or POV. I think it fits, now. SeriousLee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.67.211 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The new wording of the section is acceptable. Good job, SeriousLee. Under the banner of "controversial results", it conveys the same message without taking a side on the issue. There is just one issue: "Harsh" criticism may be questionable under NPOV, but I think it can stay unchanged, as long as there is a source attributed for the claim. Does anyone have one? Juansmith 18:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The one person mentioned in this section with an actual article was removed, so I have restored it. I feel the information lends credence to the headline.--Metron4 19:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just came across this article for the first time. That section doesn't seem NPOV to me. IMO, the sign could be removed. However, that particular section could use to be cleaned up a bit, since it's not particularly well written atm. 213.112.22.70 01:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anytime The Supreme Court produces a 5-4 Decision, the results are controversial, and we see a "political" division in the sitting court. Unfortunately, this decision by the Supreme Court protected the status quo of shoplifting in both the Criminal Law and the Civil Law where 49 or 50 states have passed Civil Recovery Laws that are a subsidy for the corporate retailers of the nation. This decision would have been more controversial if Winona Ryder had not been prosecuted and sentenced for FELONY larcenies in the Los Angeles Superior Court in December of 2002, just prior to the reversal of the 9th Circuit by The Supreme Court in early 2003. Additionally, The Supreme Court agreed to hear the California Appeal to the 9th Circuit Ruling a month after the DOD implemented policy to demand $200 from active duty military personnel for their offense of shoplifting or the offense of a sponsored dependent in the government retail stores while referring active duty personnel or their sponsored dependent to the Federal Magistrate Courts to defend against a charge of larceny shoplifting. CJKC Jan 25 2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.188.91 (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Four strikes?
What happens if somebody committed three felonies before the enactment of the three strikes law? Is he subject to the three strikes law when he commits another felony? --91.141.109.120 (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that is the case. The previous strikes are his first two strikes (there is an unecessary strike) and he gets another strike. Ummonk (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen specific cases where a felon has committed three felonies beforehand and been sentenced to life under three strikes.74.251.27.32 (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

effects in cali
Needs to be re-written: it reads like a pro-3 strikes brochure addressing criticisms. I am sure we can find a way to express opposing point of views that doesn't show such obvious bias. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Change to "Habitual Offender" and too US Centric
Changing name to its formal name of Habitual Offender laws. And adding sections about other countries. Sparten (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a bad idea. The three strikes law was a specific US law, with its own language, history, and criticism. It may fit into the larger category of "habitual offender laws," but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have its own article. I think if you want to write an article about the general term "habitual offender laws" you definitely should, but this is an article about a specific law in a specific legal system, so it pretty much needs to be US-centric. After all, we wouldn't replace the article US Government with Government. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with Ships. As I said above the last time this was suggested, I like the idea of a larger habitual offender law article, but clearly there is enough content to have a sub article on 3 strikes.  So, I like what you've done in terms of creating content on other countries, but I think the 3 strikes article should have been left as a stand alone article.-- Kubigula (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel I should move the page back to the original title and revert it to when it was only about the US law, because these changes were controversial and I think they need to be discussed more before being implemented. However, I strongly encourage you to create a new article called "Habitual offender law" because I think your added content would be really useful there. --Ships at a Distance (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done that. Check please. Nees expansion.

Sparten (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No actual study
I see no actual study that says that there has been 50% decrease in crime with a 50% increase in population. Thats just what the man who introduced the law, who lost his daughter said. The article even says they dod not know what study he is refering to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment
Hi! Im not sure if Im logged in anymore but all I did was try to write in the states that had it and when they enacted it. Thats all!! I didn't even get a chance to footnote it and it did something bad. Im so sorry. But I wasn't doing anything odd! I just wrote in the states and the year!! I don't know what to do. i just thought it would be a good thing to add to the article. I can't add the fotnotes. i wrote where I copied the info from the state deptof the states and the disaster center. I am going to leave it alone and hope someone fixes it, maybe. sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why on God's green earth don't they just move?
I never understood why people who have two strikes against them don't move at least to another state. It seems like a fairly obvious precaution, and what easier time to "move" than after finishing a prison sentence? Also, is there a provision in the law where different states with three-strike laws count each other's crimes, or does a person start fresh in every state? 70.15.116.59 02:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Most states don't have a three strike law. They just have laws gainst crimes and let the judges decide how long they need to stay in jail. I don't understand why people think judges need help deciding. Isn't it better that things get decided on a case by case deal? Its so prosecutors can tie a judges hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about other states, but Section 667.12 of the California Penal Code already covers that possibility because it applies to "any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includes all of the elements of any serious felony." The clause about "in another jurisdiction" essentially means any other sovereign jurisdiction, which would include the federal government, other U.S. states, and other countries.  The Legislature may be crazy, but it's not stupid!
 * Also, more and more old court records are being computerized, if not by the courts themselves, then by private entrepreneurs. So it's getting easier for prosecutors to dig up old convictions from around the country to use against defendants in three-strikes cases.  You can run but you can't hide from LexisNexis. --Coolcaesar 05:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Failed amendment
Certain information is missing about this subject. I would like to add it to the page.

In 2004 the proposition 66 was rejected. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger played a important role in this result. First of all given the fact that the polls were 70% YES during several months. Then the governor launched an TV campaign and also a rally through the state on this subject just 4 days before the referendum. He warned very clearly that because of this amendment "there would be released 26.000 dangerous criminals like rapists and murderers from prison". Then the proposal was rejected with 53%.


 * CAMPAIGN 2004: Schwarzenegger steps up opposition to Prop. 66
 * PROPOSITION 66:Efforts to reform 'three strikes' law likely to be on ballot again

I would like to add these facts to the wiki page. Feel free to give me some feedback. Repeater55 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Try drafting the section on this page, or use a sub-page so people can have an idea of what sort of changes you would like to make or suggest. Right now you've got not facts, but newspaper articles.  Consider how much weight this should get, considering this is a page about the 3-strikes information, not Ah-nuld.  I read the newspaper articles as more about him than the actual 3 strikes proposition, but the page could definitely use some sources.  Consider using citation templates when you add the references, and feel free to ask me if you'd like some help on setting them up.  WLU (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The current footnotes are mostly news articles now. So is everything backed up by a news article not ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Crime Rates Graph (POV)
The graph of the crime rate in California before and after the three strikes law is misleading to the extent that after looking at it, one may immediately attribute it to the three strikes law. While having more individuals in prison may certainly reduce the crime rate, the chart offers no comparison values to things such as the number of males age 18-24 (and I hear this correlates to crime rates quite well), and no comparison of crime in any other location. For instance, look at New York's crime drop without a three strikes law. Lying with statistics: the new low for Wikipedia. Experiments have comparison (or control) groups for a reason, why shouldn't statistical graphs? --132.198.252.6 (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The section isn't great, and could probably do with a re-write. Any criticisms should be based on reliable sources rather than original research.  A good place to start would be ensuring that the sources used currently are reliable, and fairly represented.  WLU (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Most importantly, I think we need a comparison to a state that has no three strike laws. iI not sure where I stand on this, and what I want to decide is weather states that have it have faired better or worse. i don't care if there has been a downturn in crime from the 90's. That could be a national trend. Can someone smarter then me do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My first thought was that the graph was taken from an advocacy site and should be challenged as not being from a reliable, independent source. However,  it appears that the graph doesn't come from that website,  and looking at the file information, it appears the graph was created for  this article:  "The overall purpose of this figure is to provide data to help evaluate the claim of http://www.threestrikes.org/TenYearReport04.pdf that the three strikes law caused a massive decrease in crime as described in the Three strikes law article."  In other words, it is  original research,  and should be removed.  (I notice that the same graph links to California prison growth, so it should be checked there as well). I'm fairly new and don't see immediately how to remove an image, or I'd do it myself.Woonpton (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To remove the graph from the page, edit the section the picture is in and simply delete the text that instructs the software to insert an image (looks like this - [[Image:title.jpg|whatever|whatever]] ). The image title is revealed by hovering the mouse over the image (WP:POPUPS, generally useful, are also awesome here) or clicking on it.  The tricky thing is sometimes the section it appears in isn't the section it is written into because of how the software spaces text based on the font size.  It's in the page somewhere.  You might want to contact the image uploader (found on the image page itself, which you get to by clicking on the image) and discuss this with them.  WLU (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, of course I looked for such image information in the section; it's not there. I don't have the time or interest to search this out; I was simply responding to a question on the NPOV noticeboard about this graph. I trust that the person who asked the question, who I assume to be an editor working on the article, will be interested enough to see that the graph is deleted.
 * By the way, all the information in that section is sourced to that advocacy website, not to a reliable source; the entire section could be deleted to the benefit of the article, unless more reliable, independent sources can be found to verify it. Woonpton (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"Three Strikes law is crap"
My father is in Folsom State prison because of the three strikes law. They pulled up an offence from seven years ago and counted it as a strike and because he already had two, he's in prison for eight years. He wont get out until i'm 21 and i'm 15 right now. I think it's nothing but stupid crap! You wanna know what the offence was? Threatening people. He didn't even act. Now i'm not saying it's right, and he should definately serve time for that but the fact is HE DID! He served six months in a county jail for the crime and it shouldn't have been counted. The three strikes law is the stupidest crap i've ever heard and I would like everyone to know that. 16:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Too bad. The point of the three strikes law is to discourage people from acting in a threatening or violent manner.  The mere threat of violence is against public policy because such action tends to provoke violent behavior in others.  If your father is so stupid as to misbehave even with two strikes on his record, he has demonstrated that he deserves long-term incarceration to ensure the safety of his fellow citizens.  A smart person would have been on his best behavior after his first felony conviction and would have sought to prove that he was rehabilitated as quickly as possible in order to get the conviction expunged or sealed.  --Coolcaesar 18:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

He acted in a threatening maner, and because something happened SEVEN years ago you think it is in any way fair that he is in jail for 8yrs? Just with that info Im pretty sure that its a pretty big injustice. We don't penalize people for being smart or stupid. And we penalize people in accordance with the offense. You can't be on your best behavior for eight years. People shouldn't have to walk around in fear of going to jail for decades. Thats not correct. Im very sorry, and I hope your dad gets out sooner then later. You can't expunge the crime by proving you are rehabilitated. I wasn't too sure what I thought before reading all this, but Im pretty sure it is in no way constitutional. Or even fair. No wonder California is in such sad shape. Maybe if you guys weren't paying for her/his dad to be in prison because he raised his voice you could afford to pay your tax refunds. Im sorry, but what did you mean "the point of the three strikes law is to discourage people from acting in a threatening manner"? Isn't the point to keep people from committing the worst types of violent crime like murder, rape, or kidnapping? Or "the mere threat of violence is against policy because it tends to provoke violent behavior in others"? I had no idea we were not allowed to do things that might make others do bad things. I just thought we were responsible for our own behavior. But if you think thats true, maybe his dad was provoked into being threatening. So maybe its not even his fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Another typical example of the contradictions one inevitably commits when attempting to defend a proposal that is blatantly absurd (ie, that said individual deserves said punishment).
 * to wit: 1)"criminal" is "so stupid" to have made threats at people, but the state is NOT "so stupid" to commit a crime against the "criminal" that is infinitely more destructive than the "crime" which the state is "punishing", and which, needless to say, ultimately does more damage to the state itself than the original "crime"
 * 2) "such action tends to provoke violent behavior in others", but infinitely worse actions on the part of the state do not.
 * 3) "your father... deserves long-term incarceration to ensure the safety of his fellow citizens" but the state DOES NOT deserve long term incarceration to ensure the safety of IT'S OWN citizens.
 * and on and on and on. their contradictions are like grains of sand on the beach.
 * once you take off the glasses of delusion that are worn by these people, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that their arguments make about as much sense as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.--Mikewax (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice that we should feel sorry for the criminal here. What about all his victims? I just hope he doesn't commit more crimes when he's released in 6 years.


 * Nice that we should hear from another genius who's never in his whole life spent the collosal amount of time that it takes to open a dictionary and look up the words "criminal" and "victim". so, Sherlock, walk out your front door and look up at the sun. is it daytime or night?--Mikewax (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.45.188 (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Sometimes a punishment is unjust. In that case, it is societies crime, not the criminals. 68.222.85.147 03:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Punishment for any crime should be isolated to that crime alone. To add punishment to a second crime for the fact of the first crime is really a double punishment of the first crime.

You commit Crime A, then serve time for Crime A. You commit similar crime B, you should serve time only for Crime B, and not for Crime B, plus additional crime because of the fact of Crime A.

Three strikes law is very bad law and probably un-Constitutional. We owe it to ourselves, as citizens, to exercise jury nullification any time we sit as jury members on a trial involving the possibility of a Three Strikes statute being used.

If society truly wants to reduce recidivism, the best path is to treat each infraction of the law as its own isolated incident, implement the punishment only for that distinct breaking of the law, then let the person start life fresh again afterwards. When we stamp permanent labels on people and punish them forever for crimes that they served time for long ago, we are really not allowing for an atmosphere for rehabilitation and recidivism.


 * This concept seems to be accurate but there are many examples to disprove it. For example, two convicted burglars out on parole (Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes) were accused of killing three family members during a home invasion, sexual assault, and arson in Cheshire, Connecticut. Each has committed more than 10 burglaries. According to the principle you stated, they should be allowed to continue to commit the same crime over and over again until one day they get out of control. They did just that. This example can be multiplied at least ten thousand times in California. People need protection from career criminals. Jimbaron 11:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This conceipt seems to be sensible but there may be just as many examples to disprove IT.
 * - Johnny Quirino, CA, 25 years to life for the theft of some razor blades.
 * - Rene Landa, CA, 27 years to life for stealing a spare tire.
 * - Luciano Orozco, CA, 25 years to life for posession of .05 grams of heroin.
 * THIS example can be multiplied thousands of times in California.
 * and how many of these victims are raped and killed in prison, essentially murdered by the state, which, of course, never even gets prosecuted for IT's crimes? According to YOUR principle, IT should be allowed to continue to commit the same crime over and over again, having long ago gotten out of control.
 * what it really boils down to (for those rare individuals who are actually rational about it) is numbers. if your example really can be multiplied ten thousand times (you got any proof of that number?), then i'd say that you're right. i can sure-as-hell prove my number ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/21/BAGRNFBV211.DTL), so untill you come up with some accurate statistics of your own, i'm gonna keep talking sanity to insane people.--Mikewax (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The constitutionality of the law has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, which is made up nine really smart people who got straight A's in high school, college, and law school, and served on law review, and clerked with the Supreme Court, and then had outstanding careers as litigators or law professors before being nominated to the bench.
 * Not all of them. Just five of them agreed. And they are very conservative judges. They are by no means the only ones qualified to decide if it is constitutional. Things get overturned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the law, you have the legal right to speak out against it. But the vast majority of the American people support three-strikes laws because they recognize that some people are so dangerous as to warrant long-term incarceration for the safety of society.  One time could be an accident; two times might be just very bad luck; but three times is enough.  A person has to be either very stupid, unlucky, or incorrigible to be convicted of a serious crime three times.  It is very unlikely that these laws will be legislated out of existence (or judicially overturned) in the foreseeable future.
 * Three-strikes is kind of like the duty of reasonable care in negligence in tort law. To paraphrase law professor Roger Schechter: We impose this duty upon all people including those who will never be able to conform their conduct to it, which makes it an extremely harsh rule.  But we do it anyway because of our concern for our own safety and our own right to not be harmed by negligent conduct.  --Coolcaesar 16:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court people are not very smart... Now I wish Earl Warren was still around. There was someone with his head on straight. Still, 4 of them (one short of a majority) did vote against in the case. Ummonk 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself to have just as much smarts and sense as those "nine really smart people" you mention. I do not at all buy the elitist argument presented above, implying that no one but a Supreme Court judge can fathom the rationale and importance of legislation. The Constitution was written for the common man, and its supreme power was vested in the people, not the government.

So, you want to lock someone up for stealing a candy bar? Fine, but don't expect me to deliver a guilty verdict from a jury box. In fact, if such a person uses deadly force to avoid incarceration for the third strike, I'll have to say you brought it upon yourselves, and again, I would not deliver a guilty verdict from the jury box. Evil, oppressive laws do not deserve support.

I completely agree. this law is not about keeping violent people in jail. We have laws against murder, rape, and aggravated assault already. So it has nothing to do with it. How can someone on a jury ever vote guilty if they don't know what crime the person is being punished for? You sentense a guy for stealing a candy bar and find out that they will be serving a sentense for murder, even though they never committed one. You almost have to vote innocent. A person can get in trouble once, and if they can drum up three charges they go to jail forever. Its not even about repeat offenders. Its just to appease people who are irrationally afraid, and figure if they put everyone in jail they will be safe. It has nothing to do with keeping murderers in jail. Murder and rape are illegal. Thats what keeps murderers in jail. And the reason they don't speak of priors in these cases is supposed to be for the benefit of the defense, not to trick the jury into handing out a terrible harsh sentense. Just another way this bad law makes the constitution fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please tell me you have said these words in haste. If not, I implore you to re-evaluate your position on freeing murderers and violent thugs onto the streets just to prove a point. It may be your loved-one gunned down for their Hercheys. --Jquarry 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. Furthermore, the law is neither evil nor oppressive.  It puts away only those people who are so stupid as to be unable to conform their conduct to the law despite two earlier strikes.  It protects the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, who go to college, work hard, earn a decent living, and therefore never find themselves in such desperate straits that they feel the need to steal golf clubs, videotapes, cookies, or pizza.
 * Also, I almost forgot to mention that the jury is usually not informed whether they are hearing a three-strikes case or not. Several California Court of Appeal panels have upheld the right of the judge to instruct counsel for both parties to not mention to the jury that they are litigating a three-strikes case, as well as the right of the judge to refuse to tell the jury when they specifically ask.  That's how the judiciary has dealt with people like you who try to engage in such silly jury nullification.  --Coolcaesar 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A few things that none of these critiques is addressing is the fact that California's law treats every individual count, rather than individual cases, as strikes; that it goes back into criminal histories no matter how far back (including juvenile records) from all 50 states and the federal system; and that it bumps wobblers up to felonies. This means that people convicted of 2 "strike" offenses after a plea bargain in a juvenile case can and have been, 20, or 30, or 40 years later, be sent away for life for an otherwise minor offense (stealing a piece of pizza, possession of a controlled substance (before Proposition 36), etc.)


 * One side effect of the "flaw" of Three Strikes Law you described here is that many gangsters moved out of California to avoid exceeding their foul count, so to speak. Many career criminals have left. For example, the movement of LA gangster to other major cities could be the result of this "flaw." I guess it is good for a state that adopted Three Strikes Law such as California, but bad for other states. Jimbaron 11:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Another matter is the overcrowded prison system. While "lock 'em all up and throw away the key" may sound rewarding, right now, California's state prison system is over 200% of its design capacity. The healthcare system is under federal court management and Schwarzenegger is currently sending any prisoners he can find that are eligible out of state. They're going to build more prisons, they have to, which will probably be filled up again with more 3rd strikers. But building enough prisons just for todays population will take probably 10 years, by which time we'll have even more 3rd strikers to send away. That, and the fact that the 3rd strikers, because of their term lengths, go to Level IV yards (maximum security), decreasing the available space for truly dangerous and difficult inmates (they're over capacity in the "supermax" SHU units too).


 * This statement assumes that the Three Strikes Law is the reason for the overcrowding, but the 10 year report indicates that the crimes have been reduced by 2 millions in 10 ten years after the law is in effect. I don't know how accurate this report is. But there is no report that has data to contradict this report so far. Jimbaron 11:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. The general downward trend in crime is a national phenomena that has effected all states, even the ones without three strikes laws. My real question is why more hasn't been done. Most European states have average sentences roughly six times less than American ones, and there are less crimes there. Maybe we're missing the big picture? 68.222.85.147 03:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In case I have to spell it out, if you pack prisons with 2 or 3 or 4 times as many people as they were designed to handle (Corcoran's maximum-security Level IV Gen-Pop yards are 466% full right now!), the results aren't pretty for law and order or any other purpose. The system is going to start collapsing under its own weight. The prisons get dangerous and unhealthy, both to their prisoners and to their staff. There isn't enough space or resources for the prisoners and the COs can't keep their eyes on everybody. You get disease outbreaks, fights, stabbings, riots, and on and on and on. Eventually, the courts will start shutting prisons down or closing them off to new commitments on 8th Amendment grounds. If they don't, well, you see what's going on in California now, with prisons and jails going on lockdown month in and out. The prisoners who will be released won't be in any sense rehabilitated (again, California's recidivism rate, counting parole violations, is in the 70% range) and are likely to be even worse than when they went in after spending years in overcrowded, filthy, violent jungles. Eventually, if you have prisons crammed with inmates in every corner, you won't be able lock them down effectively anymore and that's when we're going to start losing yards ala Attica. --Tommythegun 11:47 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing to note is that even if fewer people are convicted because of the law, since the people who are convicted spend more time, the prisons become far more crowded. Ummonk 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Naturally. Which means supernumerary inmates should simply be put to death. What is the point of permanently locking 3rd strikers anyway? The whole point is that, by commiting a third strike, they have proved their unrecoverability as citizens; why keep them around? They certainly don't fit in the foremost purpose of the prison system: Reformation. Therefore, there is no moral or social imperative whatsoever to sustain their already amputated existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.77.54 (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur with you on the POV issue
I concur. The whole double jeopardy argument against three strikes is so nonsensical that it should not be mentioned. Any five-year-old with a basic understanding of double jeopardy can see why it does not apply to the three strikes situation. --Coolcaesar 05:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You know five-year-old's with a basic understanding of double jeopardy? Wow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.155.124 (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Any of your 5 year olds heard of Bill’s of Attainder? Or the ex Post Facto Clause? "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788. You think maybe that is why some judges where so upset after the passage of the first Three Strike Laws? Upset by the removal of judicial discretion of their judgeship and ability to adjudicate? Just simply follow the mandate of the legislatures interference in the judicial realm?

But then again, your five year olds, after all, are to young to know of republican form, but rather dwell in the democracy form, where the Constitution of the United States of America has been chipped away for the greater good of the masses, rather than the preservation of liberty of the individual.

Fire and rain 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Fire and rain March 02, 2007

Let me put it this way: Young idealistic people with no kids, who will probably leave California anyway, should not have a say in this. Guys like me, with a family who has lived in California 49 years, are different. I am more than willing to pay higher taxes to keep thugs, rapists, murderers and subhuman monsters in general off the streets of California. The three strikes law has been a great benefit.

California also has the right to run its own affairs. I do not give a damn what people in other States or countries think of our three strikes law. Personally, I think most inmates in this State should be locked up till they are very old, then thrown out to drown in the gutter during the next El Nino.

Got it? (Mtloweman 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)) Mtloweman Wow. That comment should be used to point out what kind of people agree with this law. People who are selfish enough to think that only those in their position matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, some dead white guys in Philadelphia 200 years ago didn't agree with you, and they put the 8th Amendment in the Constitution. Whether or not you are willing to pay the higher taxes necessary to house 170,000 people in accord with that requirement, the people of the State of California, as expressed through their legislators and the referendum, have not been. As a result, federal judges are poised right now to take over the California prison system and possibly impose a mandatory population cap on the system, which would let thousands of those "subhuman monsters" out. The public wants to lock up people hand over fist but doesn't want to pay for them.  No politician in Sacramento is willing to give their opponents grist for scary election-year TV commercials about letting criminals out or raising taxes.  So, here come the judges. 67.161.75.43 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose that was what they said about slavery. The South has the right to run its own affairs. It doesn't give a damn what people in other states or countries say. Just because you want something doesn't mean you can trample on the rights of "sub human monsters" (never mind "all men are created equal"). These guys are people who have never been given a chance in life.


 * Another thing is, we young idealists do not plan on leaving California...Ummonk 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

three strikes bad
why do u think the three strikes are bad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.96.10 (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2004 (UTC)

because a person could do a serious crime lets say Robbery and Breaking and Entering(2strikes at the same time is typical) when he was 19, pay his time for it and be rehabilitated, and he works hard at making things work. So he is being a good guy, with a good job, wife and kids who depend on him. And he lives a model life for 20 yrs. Until he is 40. And then something happens and he does something out of character. Lets say he gets into a fight in a bar because someone makes a pass at his daughter, or insults his wife. And he doesn't hurt anyone, but he does get physical. He will under this law end up in jail not for a few months tops, which is right, but for ten years. Never see his family again all because of a stupid fight, something that could happen to anyone, and isn't even always under a persons control. This guy maybe even was using self defense, but people don't often believe cons. So maybe he isn't even guilty. So the kids grow up without a dad, maybe become bitter and get into drugs, and maybe end up in jail too. And a family and a life is ruined. And there is nothing a judge can do about it. He has to sentense this guy to ten years even if he knows its wrong. Thats why some of us think its a bad law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you should sign your comments. Second, whether an author thinks the policy is "bad" or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles must conform to a neutral point of view policy. Juansmith 18:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. See my entry in the John Gibson discussion.  For example, I think the three strikes law is typical conservative idiocy, yet still respect that there are others who don't feel that way.  Wikipedia should(somehow) accuratly reflect both these points of views. 64.160.121.83 08:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which "John Gibson" case? Your link goes to a disambiguation page.
 * *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 05:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Strikes and You're Out
"The initiative proposed to the voters had the title of Three Strikes and You're Out, referring to de facto life imprisonment after being convicted of three felonies" - shouldn't it be "Three Strikes and You're In (for life)"? Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias in Enactment By States Section
I just removed numbers that showed drops in violent crime rates after three strikes laws were put in place. It was incredibly biased to include these numbers, particularly in the "enactment section." These numbers correlate with national trends in violent crime going down, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that three strikes laws caused the drops.

If these numbers are included at all, they should be in the "effects" section, and then it should be specified that they are part of larger trends. Geo19 4 (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

tam and muad
is it possible that the 3-strike law comes from the biblical/talmudic laws of tam and muad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.242.181 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It comes from baseball, which is a game played with a ball and bat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.107.231 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Georgia's two strikes
Why is there no mention here of Georgia's “Two Strikes You're Out” law, brought on by Gov. Zell Miller effective January 1, 1995; or there at his article, or of the building boom (and bust) it caused the Georgia Department of Corrections? --Pawyilee (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

POV concerns
Hi, I do not know a lot about the three strikes laws in the US. I made one or two minor edits to this article while reading it some months ago. I just wanted to see what had been changed since then and the changes I see appear very POV-centric in the way of stripping items which may cast doubt on the three strike laws viability and also information about campaigns against it. Now some of these items may have been unsourced and made-up, but if they are not, I really would show some concern as to what has been done to the article in respect of POV. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Three_strikes_law&diff=415722438&oldid=391468729 I do not see any relevant discussion in the mean time. In fact I might just remove one of the discussion sections. ~ R.T.G 18:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Georgia's two strikes
Why is there no mention here of Georgia's “Two Strikes You're Out” law, brought on by Gov. Zell Miller effective January 1, 1995; or there at his article, or of the building boom (and bust) it caused the Georgia Department of Corrections? --Pawyilee (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Because you haven't added yet? 86.147.237.233 (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Perverse incentive"
The commentary on this aspect of criticism is either not well stated, or the criticism itself is a logical fallacy. Is it attempting to say that a 2 strike perp who has actually committed 3 or more felonies may decide that it is in his best interests to commit murder in relation to an unconvicted felony? It also currently contains the unstated assumption that a 2 strike perp is always captured a 3rd time (so why commit the 3rd at all, regardless of its nature?). The section needs to be clarified or deleted. 203.198.237.30 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I edited the section in question and I addressed what you brought up. It is indeed a logical fallacy, and rather than delete the section I merely added a sentence to illustrate this to the reader.  Looking back on it, though, I think it may break NPOV. 66.41.67.211 12:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I edited it even further, since I hard problems understanding it on my first reading. I think it's better now, but feel free to improve on it further. I also suspect I may have made it just slightly NPOV, but not more so than I can live with. 213.112.22.70 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I further clarified the perverse incentives argument. The argument deals with homicides that would tend to reduce the risk of being apprehended and sentenced under these laws, such as killing a witness or police officers during an escape attempt. 67.161.75.43 10:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In reading earlier versions of the Texas repeat offender laws. Texas did not have mandatory sentencing and after a 3rd conviction, changed the charge to a Federal conviction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddyGC (talk • contribs) 23:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

US lobbying in New Zealand

 * New Zealands Three Strikes Law was Pushed, Bought and Paid for by the US – Wikileaks, May 1, 2011--91.4.231.219 (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm? The source is about the three strikes for copyright infringement law and other aspects of US lobbying for copyright protections and copying restrictions which this article doesn't cover. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What a mess
It looks like this article has been taken over by the wackos and crazies. Any objections before I restore this back to an earlier version from a few years back when it still made sense? --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Citations and Pluralization in First Paragraph
I'm going to give notice here for discussion if needed and time plenty to change before I edit the article. I list the direct notes below.
 * 1) ¶ 1 "The name comes from baseball,". "Three-stirkes" is a disambiguous name having derived indirectly from both baseball and common punishment. Most widely accepted via the culturally common use of "Strike" when referring to a improper deed. "Strike" can be traced though it's etymology back to both baseball and punishment by striking. Needs rewording to incorporate both, or, direct citation according to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requiring inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged.
 * 2) ¶ 2 "The three-strikes law signi...". Recommend pluralization of subject, paragraph topic has a global scope of all three strikes laws. "Three-strikes laws signi..."
 * 3) ¶ 2 § 3 "Violent offenses include..." Citations required for direct statement of fact. Articles of law given for each crime, less commentary or interpretation. See Virginia Code 19.2-297.1

In order to respect the effort put in by those who've written and previously edited this article, I will not make or mark these changes for 30 days. Please provide clear explanation for reasons why these edits should not be made before that time, if you do not wish me to do so. Otherwise, please feel free to take it upon yourself to make these edits for quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webprgmr15 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10647398 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/3736399/Three-strikes-law-passes. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Alanl (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing details in article
One thing I would want to know about the Three strikes system, is what happens if one of the "inner strikes" are innocent.

For example, lets say this:

1: You commit a first crime. This is strike 1.

2: You did not commit a crime, but a witness purposely lied for the court to frame you. You get innocently sentenced.

3: You commit a second crime. This counts as strike 3 due to the innocent sentence.

Now lets say the witness admits he have lied, and the 2nd case is withdrawn.

Now a very large problem appears that can be solved in numerous ways:

1: One solution is to withdraw the third strike and apply a normal sentence for your real second crime. But this has disadvantage since when you got innocently sentenced, you had 2 warnings (even if one warning was incorrect), and you knowingly commits what you think, is a third crime. Thus you are guilty to committing 3 crimes at the time for the third strike, even if the second strike are found to be incorrect. Also, one thing to notice is that the sentence for the third crime is based on the third strike, which means that case 3 has to be redone in court to create a new sentence not taking the third strike in account.

2: One solution is to reimburse the incorrect jailtime in strike 2 in money, which is also done in "normal circumstances" where the 3rd strike has not been committed, and not consider that this innocent case did cause a third strike. This has the disadvantage that the person are now sitting off a 25-year to lifetime prison time for 2 crimes. But this are also formally correct.

Everything in contrast with where the third strike has not yet being committed. Then you just decrease the strike count when the innocent case are removed. Same appears if the third strike are found to be a innocent case (eg withdrawn due to you were not guilty), because here, you simply reverse the third strike and reimburse for the jail time that has been spent.

The problem appears when innocent strikes are "buried" when the third strike hits, and after the third strike hit, one or more "buried" cases are found to be incorrect/innocent.

The question is: How would a US law see on this case?

Sebastiannielsen (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV and Article Cleanup
I'm working on trying to clean up this article a bit. There were some sentences that were jarring when I tried to read through, so I have tried to clarify things. Additionally, this article has a big problem with WP:NPOV which I am trying to work on. First I am removing unsubstantiated claims that are fairly obviously POV, marking claims that need citation support, and later I hope to do some research for this article among reliable sources. So far I've focused on the controversies section, as that was the one that was glaringly POV to me. Constructive criticism is welcome! --Sennsationalist (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Cases
There are 9 cases listed at the bottom of the article rather inconsistently. I'm sure they are valid examples of a 3-strike law in action, but I could not see why they are in the article. It would be silly to list every single time these laws were applied, so we should only list ones that improve the reader's understanding of the topic or have some individual significance. I'm pretty sure most of these cases do neither. Anyone else have any thoughts?Piboy51 (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Name Capitalization Inconsistency
The capitalization is inconsistent: the name of the law is fully capitalized in the article synopsis, but isn’t in the title. Someone please go ahead and change one of them. I’m not sure whether it should be fully capitalized (English isn’t my first language), so I’m not going to touch the article myself. I guess it should be renamed. 176.195.247.103 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I edited the article to provide consistent, correct capitalization and punctuation of the variations on "three-strikes law" and I moved the page to reflect the proper punctuation, since "three-strikes" is a compound modifier as recognized by major publications such as The New York Times (e.g. 1, 2, 3).  B.Rossow ·  talk  14:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. I strongly disagree with the article move and contend that it should be moved back. The correct term is "three strikes law."  Examples can be found here:   . --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

America
What a stupid country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.82.125 (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What other legal system is based on the rules of baseball. If the game had given four strikes, our prison population today would be significantly smaller. Petition for a change in the rules of baseball; I think they'll be more understanding and the desired change in the legal system will follow. Wacko America... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.107.231 (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh contraire. The 3 strike rule serves solely to maximise the prison population.  America has the distinction of having the largest proportion of its adult population in prison in the world.  The reason?  A supply of slave labour.  American prisoners are required to work in the always attached prison factory making everything from paint to parts for automobiles and domestic appliances.  This means that American products are effectively subsidised by the practice - something that America condems in every other country.  86.147.237.233 (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"The first true "three-strikes" law was passed in 1993, when Washington state voters approved Initiative 593." Not true. Arizona has a 3-strikes law well before that, "Hannah Priors" https://www.azcourts.gov/ccsguide/Aggravating-Circumstances/ARS13-751-F-1. Nehmo (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Article needs a massive revert back to last good version on 30 April 2013
The article was 35,975 bytes long on 30 April 2013. At that point it was a fairly lucid and approachable treatment of the subject.

It was 53,462 bytes long on 7 May 2013 after heavy edits by accounts User:Es21ac, User:Gunburd, User:Jorgecr54, and User:Ashleygomez94. As all of those accounts were specifically created just to edit this article, it is clear that those edits were in bad faith and the point was to introduce a strong bias against three-strikes laws in violation of the WP:NPOV policy. They were also poorly written so the result is a turgid, unreadable mess that very few people have the patience to read through, in violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. (Also, someone needs to run CheckUser on all those accounts and ban them if they turn out to be sockpuppets.)

Two years have gone by and many editors have attempted unsuccessfully through minor edits here and there to fix the colossal mess that was introduced in early May 2013. It is now beyond any reasonable dispute that no one has the time, money, energy or interest to spend the three days that would be necessary to reconceptualize and effectively clean that up. I think everyone has more important priorities.

I propose to revert back to the last good version on 30 April 2013 and then selectively reintroduce a few of the useful points that were added after that date, in a way that clarifies rather than obfuscates the topic. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed this message after doing [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Three-strikes_law&diff=717869567&oldid=716471033 this edit], which came about because I was trying to figure out how on earth the article ended up with a sentence saying, and I quote: "A 1999 study, in which, pre-three strikes crime rate (1991-1993) were compared to post-three strikes crime rate (1995-1997).". I found it was introduced by MFM14 who had also made a lot of unexplained deletions (which usually set off [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truck&diff=646950791&oldid=646941991 loud alarm bells] for me. Maybe some of the information needed removing, but it looks like at least some of it was added long before 2013, for example the list of controversial cases where the Three-strikes law has been applied (which was completely removed in that edit). I don't know much about this subject, except there are similar (but less severe) mandatory sentencing laws in my home state of Western Australia which have also been very controversial. I'll leave this article to people who are more interested in this topic. Graham 87 07:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you please re-insert the studies and other content that were deleted when you reverted this to two years' back? I don't see any reason why this page should revert entirely back to an ancient edit just because one user finds that the page became biased back then. If you or the user feel it is, you guys should selectively edit the page back into shape and justify each individual edit. As it stands, the page has now dropped all kinds of relevant research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've re-inserted the studies; any other content you want re-added would be in the page history. I didn't revert to the November 2015 edit because I saw bias ... I only reverted because I found some really bizarre wording and what I saw as inappropriate text removals, as I said above. Graham 87 16:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

California
The California section alone was bigger than the whole rest of the article, and seemed to give extremely undue weight to the issue in California, so I removed it. With the information I've removed one may be able to turn this link blue, but it doesn't seem to fit in this article at all when most states get no more than a passing mention. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 19:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)