Democrats: Soft On Crime

Back in 1993, we here in the Evergreen State, by a margin of almost two to one, passed an initiative mandating life without parole  after committing three violent felonies.  It was called the "Three Strikes and You're Out" law.  When it was on the ballot, those who opposed it, (liberal Democrats) told us it would fill the prisons!  The proponents said it would only increase the population by 17-22 per year.  It passed in large part because people were tired of violent offenders getting sentenced and then released after serving just a fraction of their sentences.  well, it has worked, and we did not get the influx of hundreds of lifer inmates that the liberals said would swell our prison population.  The result has stuck close to the proponents predictions.  After 14 years, there are 286 members of the "Three Strikes" club.  That's about 20 per year.

Now comes State Senator Adam Kline (D-Criminals), a liberal Democrat out of Seattle who wants to say that's too many.

Cherease Cross robbed gas stations and convenience stores. She said she had a gun but it turned out to be her finger or a curling iron or a bottle of perfume.

No one got hurt, yet in 2000 she was sent away to prison for life under the "three strikes and you're out" law for three second-degree robbery convictions.

"Life without the possibility of parole is the most drastic sentence we have short of death," said Sen. Adam Kline (D-Seattle).

Sen. Kline wants second-degree robbery and second-degree assault to be a foul ball, not a strike.

"We're not going to give up on those people quite yet," Kline said at a senate hearing. "We're going to give them a foul ball, they will be sentenced, they will be punished, but we're not going to give up on them for the rest of their lives."

These people are in prison for committing violent acts.  Ms. Cross may not have had a real weapon, but her victims did not know that.  Ms. Cross deserves to be in prison for the rest of her life because she did not learn from her two previous convictions.  She knew that if she got caught that third time, she was going to spend the rest of her miserable life in jail.

My old Daddy raised me with this maxim:  "Don't do the crime unless you can do the time."  Of course, it also didn't hurt that in my younger years, Daddy was a cop. 

No vote has been taken on softening of the three-strikes law (SB 5964), but should it make it through the Legislature. The initiative supporters say they'll be back and try to make that law even stronger.

And I'll definitely support that!

VW

Comments

[canuckistani]

Sorry, I have to agree with the Senator. I think one has to use common sense in applying the law to cases like this. This woman did not deserve to go to prison for life and had that happened here in Canada, she likely would've been laughed out of the courtroom for being such an idiot. Yes, she would've done some jail time had she been sentenced here, but gotten counseling with it. Putting her in jail for life is applying a law because it is the law, not because it makes sense. That's stupid. It's her whole life! That's cruel and unusual punishment. Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism? Also, if this was your daughter or the daughters of your readers, would you want them in jail for life?

And the 3 strikes law has caused jail populations to increase to the point new jails are having to be built. It has become a booming industry for companies like Wackenhutt and Corrections Corporation of America. The last one is a subsidiary of Haliburton.

So, is it law being applied, or maintaining a thriving industry to warehouse undesirables???

[Violence Worker]

Canucki, in the Thirteen years of our three strikes law, it's added less then 300 lifers. That is hardly causing a population explosion.

I've taught my kids since they were able to talk that if they do the crime, they gotta do the crime. I also told them that if they ever get picked up by the cops, don't call me. unless You are without a doubt innocent. Otherwise, you got into the jam, you get yourself out.

If one of my daughters was stupid enough to pull an armed robbery three times, then she'd get what she deserves. It would be hard and I'd cry a lot of tears, but you cannot thumb your nose at the law.

And when I said armed, I meant armed. If someone robs you and they indicate they have a weapon, does that make it any less a crime then if they used something to make you think it was a weapon? Not in my mind.

And like I said, She was told the consequences. Sucks to be her!

VW

[BobF]

The thing about the 3 strikes law is that those are the three times they were caught. How about all the times she got away with it?