America: 3 Strikes & you're out...

Sleipnir

...Ireland: 118 strikes and you're out!



A 36-year-old man, caught red-handed by gardai while stuck in the window of a flat he had just burgled, has been jailed for two years by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.

Declan Murphy, of Gloucester Place, Dublin 1, had pleaded guilty to a single count of burglary from a flat on Parnell Street on February 8, 2003.

Garda Declan Fahey said he and a colleague saw him stuck in the window of the flat as they were driving by. They immediately recognised Murphy, who has a total of 117 previous convictions. He had attempted to leave from the window of the flat when the woman who lived alone there returned home.

Gda Fahey said Murphy managed to free himself from the window and encountered the woman downstairs as she was trying to leave. He struggled with her and managed to bring her back into the apartment complex.

However, he then got stuck with his victim between the glass doors at the entrance of the complex.

He was carrying a screwdriver but did not harm the woman or gardai, who arrested him while he was stuck between the doors.

Xterminator

Thats nothing!

Look at the juvaniles, who have 100's of convitions, and never seen the inside of a prison/institute.

I would love too see a US style 3 felonies and your spend your natural life, (until you reach the age of retirement) in prison.

A fairly small number of know criminals are just walking crimewaves!

Sure we might have to build anothe coupl of prisons, but the cost of crime would be reduced, balancing the costs, and improving our quality of life.

When I see a junkie in court, charged with many counts of assualt robbery, god knows how many previous convictions etc, andf the get a year or 2, with half the sentance suspended, it makes me wonder what kind of society we want.

X

Lafortezza

Originally posted by Xterminator
I would love too see a US style 3 felonies and your spend your natural life, (until you reach the age of retirement) in prison.
...

Sure we might have to build anothe coupl of prisons, but the cost of crime would be reduced, balancing the costs, and improving our quality of life.

Thats a great idea in principle, it would definitely do alot to curb petty crime, but can you imagine the amount of people who would be sent away for their natural lives in a couple of years? I really don't see how us taxpayers could afford to build that many prisons and pay whatever it costs to keep each prisoner in jail for life.
And can you imagine that prison service overtime bill?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Xterminator
I would love too see a US style 3 felonies and your spend your natural life, (until you reach the age of retirement) in prison.

Doesn't that tend to lead to acts of desperation: if you get caught stealing a car (or whatever) and you've two strikes already, then you've little to lose by trying to shoot your way out...?

ixoy

The three strikes rule is somewhat absurd. As a result of this a man, on his third strike, got a fifty year jail sentence. His crime? He stole some video tapes for his kids. Source: here. The decision, btw, was upheld by the Supreme Court. For those of you who don't know the system works by mandating a 25-year setence for each new offence. He had shop lifted twice but it counted as two offences, creating a 50 year sentence.
THAT is the sort of situation the three strike rule will result in - too absurd? Too crushing?
Having said that the degree of leniency, especially on those little young scumbags who have a hundred to their name, needs to be addressed. I know the young offenders institutions are overflowing but we can't continue to do what we're doing currently. I don't want a burgeoning prison population (close to 1% of the US is incarcerated) but it's going out of control.

Stark

Just release all the stoners to make room for the scumbags. Problem solved. (stupid anti-drug laws).

The Corinthian

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Doesn't that tend to lead to acts of desperation: if you get caught stealing a car (or whatever) and you've two strikes already, then you've little to lose by trying to shoot your way out...?

Then if the Gardai are also armed, they may be able to save us all a hell of a lot of trouble and expense... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by ixoy
The three strikes rule is somewhat absurd. As a result of this a man, on his third strike, got a fifty year jail sentence. His crime? He stole some video tapes for his kids. Source: here.

The logic with the three strikes policy is where rehabilitation has failed and it’s simply not going to work - as such the only thing left to Society is to take steps to prevent any further crimes being committed. It’s a rather harsh and utilitarian approach, but if one considers the percentage of crimes that are committed by repeat offenders, it doesn’t take very long to do the sums.

Where this policy can fail is where it is used in absence or instead of proper rehabilitation of criminals. In such a case you’ll end up with high levels of repeat offence and an eventual overloading of the prison system.

However, neither it should not be discounted as a means of protecting Society, as no matter how much care one may take in the rehabilitation of some criminals, one may reach a point where one has to admit defeat and consider the good of Society as a whole rather than that of the individual.

Syth

I think setting the bar at 3 crimes is a little harsh. There are probably many people who have commited 3 crimes, but are not what we would call walking crimewaves. How about something like 10 in 10 years? The reason for the 10 year limit, is that if someone is convicted for possesion of dope when they are 17 and 19, do they desever to be locked up for ever when they steal when they are 33?

pigeonbutler

I would be against the way in which the 3-strikes policy is implemented in the states but I wouldn't see anything wrong with bringing in a 3-strikes and you get life (Real Life, not 7-12 years) rule for Violent crimes such as:
Assault causing grevious harm
Armed Robbery
Illegal Possesion of a firearm
Rape
Aggravated Burglary

However bringing in mandatory sentences doesn't necessarily mean they would be implmented by the courts. The statutory minimum of 10 years for anyone found guilty of possession of drugs, with value of €12,700 or greater, with intent to supply is so rarely handed down that the judges are making a joke of the law. They seem to consider almost every case to ahve "exceptional circumstances" so that they can sidestep handing down the minimum sentence.

Syth

I agree pigeonbutler. Having a three strikes law for small crimes like having drugs is stupid.

pigeonbutler

That's not exactly what I said. I said having a 3 strikes law for non-violent crime is stupid.
I also criticised the judiciary for being unlawfuly lenient in their sentencing of people found with large quantities of drugs.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Syth
I think setting the bar at 3 crimes is a little harsh. There are probably many people who have commited 3 crimes, but are not what we would call walking crimewaves. How about something like 10 in 10 years? The reason for the 10 year limit, is that if someone is convicted for possesion of dope when they are 17 and 19, do they desever to be locked up for ever when they steal when they are 33?

The three strikes rule is based upon three convictions - not crimes or even arrests. Statistically, you’ll have committed a lot more than three crimes to get to that point.

I also don’t think that misdemeanours can be counted (correct me if I’m wrong) - so conviction on possession of controlled substances would not count, while possession of controlled substances, with intent to supply would count (and well it should).

So returning to and adjusting your example two convictions for drug dealing at 17 and 19 (the latter almost certainly involving prison time) and larceny at 33. Probably a series of other arrests and misdemeanours could be added to that. Not quite the saint you suggested originally.

AngelofFire

I dont get it. why to many people seem to think that the tougher we are on crime the safer the streets will be. it doesnt matter if someone gets 5 years or 50 years for a crime like drug dealing, the number of drug dealers will stay the same. Americans are insanley tough on crime, and are the streets of america any safer than those in ireland? NO.

I think instead of having a revolving door prison system where the same criminals are in and out all the time there should be a re education system where emphasis is put on constructive reabilitation. Im not being nieve about this. i know that there will be some people who cant be reabilitated but i believe it is worth it for the considerable majority that can be.i watched a documentary on a "reabilitation experiment" in texas and it showed that 72% of inmates on the reabilitation programme didnt commit any other offences after they were released.

to be honest it makes a lot more sense than the 3 strike system

The Corinthian

Originally posted by AngelofFire
I dont get it. why to many people seem to think that the tougher we are on crime the safer the streets will be.

Because, all other factors remaining the same, that is what would happen. Of course, all other factors rarely remain the same, so it generally is not a solution.

I think instead of having a revolving door prison system where the same criminals are in and out all the time there should be a re education system where emphasis is put on constructive reabilitation.

What’s is being discussed here is not a revolving door system though. Quite the opposite.

Certainly, without a concerted effort a proper rehabilitation, such a policy would ultimately result in an unsupportable level of overcrowding. However, there are some who simply cannot be rehabilitated, such as sociopaths, and that’s where such a policy is probably necessary.

i watched a documentary on a "reabilitation experiment" in texas and it showed that 72% of inmates on the reabilitation programme didnt commit any other offences after they were released.

I’d be doubtful of those figures and how they may have been massaged.

Specky

What kind of crime are we actually proposing trying to stop here?

The "shock the nation" type crimes that hit the headlines are often first offences or first convictions so the three strikes rule wouldn't count.

If you lock up "drug barons" then all that happens is another one steps up to fill the vacant space and serve the continued demand.

There has certainly been a move towards increased custodial sentences in the UK and US over the last few years, probably as a result of the failure of measures aimed at reducing crime through "understanding" criminals. The opinion now seems to be that if you have a criminal on the street he is a threat, put him behind bars and he is less of a threat.

Obviously though you can't just keep locking people up. The US has an enormous prison population, I believe it is continueing to grow in the UK.

Now I'm not a bleeding heart liberal who wants to give the criminals a big hug and a slap on the wrist but there has to be a better solution than just sweeping our problems under the carpet and into the prison system.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Specky
The "shock the nation" type crimes that hit the headlines are often first offences or first convictions so the three strikes rule wouldn't count.

A three strikes rule policy is not designed to deal with such crimes, as they tend to carry life sentences (in theory) anyway.

If you lock up "drug barons" then all that happens is another one steps up to fill the vacant space and serve the continued demand.

By that argument, we probably shouldn’t incarcerate any criminal, because there will always be a criminal to take their place.

Xterminator

Originally posted by Specky
What kind of crime are we actually proposing trying to stop here?

If you read the preceding posts, it is claer we want to stop the serial offender.

In my post i mentioned that some criminal are walking crimewaves.
By the time they go to court again thay have large no's of convictions, usually to feed a drug habit. Typicaly these people are described as 'known to gardai'.

Originally posted by Specky
If you lock up "drug barons" then all that happens is another one steps up to fill the vacant space and serve the continued demand.

True. But what is the alternative you suggest? I think that , the combination of harsh minimum sentances, 3 strikes and you get life, and the CAB, we can hit these people in the pocket, confiscating any assets they accumalted, and at least send the message out that society wont tolerate that kind of activity.

Originally posted by Specky
There has certainly been a move towards increased custodial sentences in the UK and US over the last few years, probably as a result of the failure of measures aimed at reducing crime through "understanding" criminals. The opinion now seems to be that if you have a criminal on the street he is a threat, put him behind bars and he is less of a threat.

Exactly. Placating the criminal has been a failure. I belive in prevention measures (Working in the community with the youth, reducing early school leavers etc.) I believe a first time convict should be offered a chance to help themeselves, especially through adult education, and perhaps assistance in getting a job, when released.

But there are criminals, who choose crime.

But as ive said we need to draw a line. 3 'serious' crimes and your out. And by serious I mean from the view point of the victim. I would use the example of scumbags who rob shops or people, often with a syringe or weapon. They need to be taken off the street. The fear this causes to the victims creates the feeling your not safe in your home, or when you go out. This reduces the quality of life for us all.

I believe it also sends the mesasage to the new generation of criminals, (who are possibly even more violent) that there are currently no real consequences for there actions.
The police dection rate is currently so low, due to endemic crime levels that your are more likely to get away with a violent crime, than you are to be caught. We are losing the battle at the moment!

Originally posted by Specky
Now I'm not a bleeding heart liberal who wants to give the criminals a big hug and a slap on the wrist but there has to be a better solution than just sweeping our problems under the carpet and into the prison system.

But you've not suggested an alternative. Your arguement seems to be they wont stop, so why bother tackling them.
And i'm all for better solutions which will protect society from proven repeat offenders. And 3 strikes is a way of doing this.

X

Syth

The three strikes rule is based upon three convictions - not crimes or even arrests. Statistically, you’ll have committed a lot more than three crimes to get to that point.

True, but in our justice system, unless someone was convicted of a crime, then the are innocent of the crime. Of course we don't live in an ideal world...

I think the important thing to remember with crime is that there are many different types of crimes, eg a druggie who robs to fed their habit. A politicion that takes bribes for the money and/or power trip. A 15 year old skanger who robs cars for the buzz and/or street cred, and so on. Each catagory of crime should be responded to with actions that will reduce the number of crimes in that catagory that will happen again. Thus the question should be what category of crimes should we apply the 3 strikes rule (or a varient thereof).

In general apply a varient of the 3 strikes rule to violent crimes. Crimes where the criminal planned it a little before hand or had thought beforehand "If he does X, I'll stab him", not spur of the moment crimes.