but who is going to change the prison experience to "harsh"
who will do that? no one! that's the truth
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
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.