I really don't think that "three strikes" would apply to youth convicted at under age 18 - not sure what age the California law starts at but gotta be 18 or over surely

[quote="roadpilots"]YES - Agree with principle but also agree with ZzoL (ie the severity of the offence). Something that appears to be forgotten is that prison; as well as being a punishment (arguable with the cushiness of UK prisons), is also to protect the public by removing the offender from society. Repeated offending should attract escalating sentencing (conducive with the severity of the offences of course) - if offenders know they will only get a few weeks or months - where is the deterrent to re-offending?[/quote]

Exactly! and that is the whole point of "THREE STRIKES"

'three strikes' properly deals with your serious repeat offender

DO YOU SUPPORT IT? that's what this thread is asking :slheh:

[quote="falkor"]

Their first arrest will typically end with a "youth caution."

Their second arrest will typically end with another "youth caution."

Their third arrest will typically end with a "FINAL WARNING."

So there you have 3 offences, all possibly indictable matters where the "poor innocent youth" has not even attended a COURT OF LAW yet.

.[/quote]

Thats where the problem lies "up the anti" todays minor offender is potentially tomorrows serious or serial offender. There will those that wont change whatever and they will soon dissappear that in itself will stop a lot of youngsters starting down the road of a criminal.

I agree in principal. Having been a police officer for over 30years (now retired) I saw a great many changes in legislation over the years. Two of the greatest obstacles placed in our way were the introduction of PACE & the CPS. It was as if the legislators were saying, everyone knows they did it, but we have to give the offender every possible opportunity to get away with it. There was nothing worse than putting a complex or even a simple case together only for the CPS to decide to not even test it before the courts in case they lost.

As well as three strikes and they are out, I am a firm believer that capital punishment should be brought back for certain violent offences, murder - especially if it involves ANY of the emergency services on or off duty, armed robbery, forced rape, you get my drift.

Having said that I doubt whether anything will change but have a go, nothing ventured nothing gained.

Yes, I agree with that... :slbi:

but who is going to change the prison experience to "harsh"

who will do that? no one! that's the truth

[quote] for example they use it in California, 3 strikes = life. now you can Google it and read the stories for yourself but there is someone doing life for stealing a slice of pizza worth 50p, his previous two strikes where for minor crimes he did as a youngster [/quote]And the problem with a youth who has "only" got 3 indictable offences clocked up which are all "minor offences," ok this seems a harsh sentence, but prosecutors in California have to "OPT" to have the "3 strikes" actioned by the court, if they don't, the court continue to sentence outside of the "3 strikes" law.

So prosecutors must have had their reasons for "OPTING" for "3 strikes" when the accused "only" had 3 indictable offences clocked up which are all "minor offences."

It may be worth bearing in mind what leads to the first court appearance of a "youth" in the UK.

Their first arrest will typically end with a "youth caution."

Their second arrest will typically end with another "youth caution."

Their third arrest will typically end with a "FINAL WARNING."

So there you have 3 offences, all possibly indictable matters where the "poor innocent youth" has not even attended a COURT OF LAW yet.

On their fourth arrest it will be seen that they already they have clocked up 2 youth cautions and a Final Warning so then what could happen? Well we are all sitting here thinking, yeah this time they will go to court for definite, well this fourth case, it might be another "minor offence" e.g. shoplifting a bottle of water, stealing a pizza slice, are we really going to send him to court for that? Well with 2 youth cautions and a Final Warning you would think so, but Police now have FIXED PENALTY NOTICES for shoplifting, this could easily be issued to a youth, they pay the £100 fixed penalty, no court case (again)

So it makes you wonder what happened to the youth that ZzoL quotes, how many "youth cautions" had he already received? It's not always as straightforward as you think, if prosecutors "OPTED" for "3 strikes" in that case, I am thinking they had very good reasons for doing so.

"THREE STRIKES" is tough, it's also simple. Simplicity and transparency is what is needed. Anybody can understand "three strikes" - you get convicted of your third indictable offence, you do thirty years! It is the simplicity and the sheer brute force that is it's strength.

I salute California for voting it in again and again. Who suffers? There must be a downside! OK the residents are paying taxes to keep these "people" in prison for 30 years, is it worth it? Too damn right it is. These "people" are out of circulation and not committing further indictable offences and we all know they surely WOULD the minute they were let out, so why limit it to 30 years? These "people" had their chance with free reign on the streets and showed they were unfit to be allowed that freedom, but 30 years on - it is pretty obvious that in 99% of cases that yes, they do deserve yet another chance, so give it to them, again simple logic.

I would support three strikes and your out regardless of crime, but I also think there should be harsh sentences right from the off none of this 8 weeks lark or community service, also if you are in receipt of benifits they disappear full stop. Human rights would also go until sentence has been served.
I would also reinstate the death penalty for pre meditated murder and paedophiles and all acts of terrorism.
Prisons would be a place of hardship not a reasonable place to live with a basic diet, hard work and no home comforts cells would be bare.

Of course I'm all for it. This country has been far too soft on scum for far too long! :slpe:

YES - Agree with principle but also agree with ZzoL (ie the severity of the offence). Something that appears to be forgotten is that prison; as well as being a punishment (arguable with the cushiness of UK prisons), is also to protect the public by removing the offender from society. Repeated offending should attract escalating sentencing (conducive with the severity of the offences of course) - if offenders know they will only get a few weeks or months - where is the deterrent to re-offending?

thanks for your support

here are some replies from the Prison Officer site

[quote="ZzoL"]as much as i agree with it, the reality can be quite stupid.

for example they use it in California, 3 strikes = life. now you can Google it and read the stories for yourself but there is someone doing life for stealing a slice of pizza worth 50p, his previous two strikes where for minor crimes he did as a youngster. he had gone 20-30 years without committing a crime. so do we include crimes committed under 18 in this? also what about people who commit multiple offenses in one go? for example they steal a car, do a runner from the police and then fight the police when they try to arrest them and are found to have a bit of class B/A in there pocket? is that one night of craziness worth 30 years??!?

when you consider a lot of our murderers don't do 30 years it seems a bit OTT for minor criminals. and then there is the cost, the only thing that makes me sicker then repeat offenders is the fact my tax money is paying for them, the idea of paying for them for 30 year doesn't sit well, where do we put them? where is all this money going to come from?

i agree that repeat offending has to be stopped and harsher sentencing is key to that, but we must still use common sense.[/quote]

I replied to that :slby:

[quote="Ping"]You'd probably have more chance of bringing back hanging or national service. Especially for looters. They might consider that one at the moment as quite a few have got a sweat on over that 'relatively minor' social issue. After all, it's a beast of their own creation. It's been give, give, give for years now. At which point did they not think it would become take, take, take. It's no longer just hardcore criminals that are totally fearless. The system just does not scare people any more. They know what they're getting long before they get anywhere near a courtroom.[/quote]

didn't reply to that one, any thoughts?

My "wish list" would definately support this. Though, got to say, the voice on my other shoulder questions the cost of 30 years jail.

Problem is that so many dysfunctionals can't either count or remember how to count to three.

After 57 years on this earth (with 10 of them for plod), not much surprises me any more.

Yep, I'll vote for it! 3 strikes and out of the game.

I agree get tough on criminals they should be the ones living in fear not inoccent law abiding members of public.

Prision should not be as comfortable as they are.

I appreciate that there are also so many other things wrong with society today, and peoples expectations is one of them.

We don't owe anyone else anything! Everyone shoulddo their bit, play there part and contribute. No one has the devine right to expect something for nothing!

Teach society exactly what 'RESPECT' means and how it's earnt!

I was just watching some of the footage of those who feels it's acceptable to kicking people in the head etc.

I never believed in an eye for an eye..... but now I wonder how would they feel if it was them or their families, businesses etc?

Prison for many is too good for them, but if it's all we have we should not make it an easy way out a term given at sentancing should be just that. NO early release!

I will put my soap box away now. :n196:

I agree with it. I did a sentence plan on a prisoner in my previous employment. He had OVER 175 previous convictions. When I ask what he did for a living, his reply was an unemployed burglar. He should have been life'd off.

We definitely need a 3 strikes and you're out policy in this country. For too long criminal scum have been sticking 2 fingers up at the justice system. Lock 'em up and throw away the key I say. :slgo:

I am looking for members to support the following, which I propose to add to our "main site"

do you support it? if so, why? anything you write in this topic can automatically be quoted on the static site unless you clearly show in the post otherwise
=====================================================

This country needs a dynamic and robust sentencing policy right across the UK to deal with REPEAT OFFENDERS, who have nothing to fear from our pathetically weak justice system.

Anybody convicted of their third indictable offence should receive a minimum of thirty years [b]consecutive imprisonment[/b], no discounts for pleading guilty, no getting out in 1/4 of the 30 years, [u]they serve 30 years[/u] the whole 30 years and nothing but the 30 years IN PRISON

We are seeing repeat offenders released from prison who go straight back out and commit more indictable offences the same month of their release from prison. This is not protecting the public, this is endangering the public with the release of criminals who we know will reoffend again and again and again.

Nobody would deny that somebody can make a mistake, get in bad company and through poor judgement and bad decisions end up before a court. Such a person should be given another chance, of course! However [i]upon a third conviction for an indictable offence[/i][b] ENOUGH IS ENOUGH[/b], this country's current justice system sees repeat offenders go in and out of prison with the ethos "catch me if you can" - these people will go on with their criminal activities until they get caught the next time and the next time and the next time, this is not the way to deal with them, the British public are paying the price of such a rubbish system and it is time we had what we need instead :THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT

=====================================================
if you agree with the above then say so in a reply!