ATL   SB

Posted: 06:27 pm [PST] on July 06 2009

I do not agree with the three strikes law, it only costs more money for tax payers and incarcerates repeated offenders for a minor crime insterad of three violent crimes.

BBB   OC

Posted: 09:49 pm [PST] on April 19 2009

Learn how to spell LOS Angeles

Tanisha Mitchell   San Diego, CA

Posted: 08:07 pm [PST] on February 18 2009

I don't agree with the 3 Strikes Law. I don't want to pay for people serving life in prison for crimes that are not violent.

Dr. Ray   LA

Posted: 09:08 pm [PST] on January 05 2009

Top Cop pooped his pants poopy

Rachel Summers   San Francisco

Posted: 02:24 pm [PST] on May 26 2008

Bill Jones states that his intent was 'to make criminals change their ways or get out of California.' I don't know about everyone else, but I have family in other parts of the US than just California. His statement is proof that 3-strikes is a bandaid that does nothing to really address crime from happening in the first place. If 3-strikes was a deterrent then the recidivism rate would not be 70%. The same person behind 3-strikes is now behind a new initiative, Safe Neighboorhood Act, which is another tough on crime law. The supporters ironically claim that we need this b/c murder in California is on the rise. Very contradictory to their claim that 3-strikes has brought down violent crime.

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