favio rojas   san jose

Posted: 07:21 pm [PST] on January 04 2008

when a person commits a mistameanor crime he or she must be punished but not 25 yrs to life,thats cruel punishment.Even if he or she is a repeat offender.It would more appropriate to give them a few years like maybe 4 or 5 years.the 3 strikes should be strickly for really,really serious crimes such as murders,armed robberys,Etc,Etc.

Jonathan   Fischbach

Posted: 05:28 am [PST] on December 10 2007

Chief Bratton fails to understand that prosecurtors have the choice as to whether a 3rd offeder is charged with a misdemeanor or felony. Therefore the "minor crime" 3rd offense argument is weak at best.

John Jackson   Wildomar, CA

Posted: 02:53 pm [PST] on December 09 2007

Having spent 30+ years in law enformcement, I am confindent that none of the three areas of concern will keep crime under control independently. It takes a concerted effort of fair, equitable and delibert enforcement. Three stikes should be constrained to use for major crimes.....not minor offences. More police presnce is always a deterent, but some will never become a part of a sensable society.

Jenni   Las Vegas

Posted: 11:11 am [PST] on December 06 2007

The questions above are worded incorrectly. Yes, three strikes has been effective at locking up repeat offenders. But that doesnt mean that it has been an effective law. The third strike provision is too broad and allows for offenders who have committed a petty misdemeanor to be incarcerated for 25 years to life. That's crazy!

jorge   sanjose

Posted: 05:08 pm [PST] on December 28 2006

Three strikes is cruel my brother who's worked all his life payed taxes, pay the county off for all his child support, always been a good father provider, now his children will never see him again he's much loved by his children and family if my parents were alive they wouldnt believe this they'd be devastated

gloria   el monte ca.

Posted: 12:31 pm [PST] on June 21 2006

let the time fit the crime

Susie Torres Susa   Hailey Idaho

Posted: 03:47 am [PST] on June 15 2006

I would like to see more prisons, but at the same time, I would like to see "prisonors" working to pay off their own debt in prison, not the tax payers, and whether that be work programs through corporations through prison or something similar. I think prisoners should be held accountable for their actions, by paying for any stays in prison. Tax payers should not be burdened with this.

lana stockton   chowchilla, california

Posted: 12:01 pm [PST] on April 19 2006

I THINK THAT THE THREE STRIKES LAW NEEDS TO BE REVISITED. I THINK THAT THOSE WHO THINK REVENGE IS THE ANSWER AND SENDING PEOPLE TO PRISON FOR LIFE WILL RIGHT THE WRONGS ARE SADLY MISTAKEN. THERE IS A FAIR AND JUST SOLUTION AND VENGENCE IS NOT JUST.

hope   lancaster

Posted: 08:17 am [PST] on March 30 2006

o you remember what type of stuff you got into when you were 16,17,18,20 you probly did't even know it was a crime. Now let's say you were one of the unlucky one's who got caught.You were sentensed to 1yr in camp. You stayed out of trouble got married started a family,then 20,30,40yrs later you're arrested and convicted of petty theft.Guess what! 25 years to life! you can get two strikes in one incident.
So what I'm saying is, if you have children and they make a mistake while there young,three strikes is waiting for them them when they get old. the most minor crime can get them life in prison. Even petty theft! That,s a joke right!

opinion   CA

Posted: 12:53 am [GMT] on March 13 2006

First of all, the first 2 strikes MUST be violent and heavy crimes (involving assult or weapons). It doesn't matter if the 3rd stike is a small crime or not, these people have proven that they can and will do serious damage to society. So by saying someone is getting locked up for a small crime is not entirely accurate. These small time criminals are NOT small time at all, we just happen to see the LAST crime they committed. The judges cannot "for kicks" put away small criminals.