The American Spectator

J. Menicucci /p> p> Mr. Rocca’s article was certainly interesting. I specifically like his conclusion of what happened to paying one’s debt to society. Being on the other side of the hill, I remember in my youth the ditch and road gangs in Florida that dotted the landscape. It would be fitting that Mr. Andrade be introduced to that venerable institution called the road gang. If nothing else Mr. Andrade would lack the free time to be stealing tapes from Kmart. Unfortunately that practice is no longer practiced by most states today. It’s “cruel and inhumane” is the usual refrain. But those gangs left an impression. My father would say (every time he spotted a gang) — “If you S—— Up, this is where you End Up.” Ahhhh for the good ole days … br> — John McGinnis /p> p> The important thing is that Californians like this law, generally. It has been reported that many career criminals left the state after three strikes passed. These people are smart enough to remove themselves from a hazardous situation so why should those who continue to flout the law be given any special favors? Most are convinced that criminals who are frequently caught in the act have previously committed many crimes that were not detected. Society is improved by the removal of career criminals after the third opportunity for them to change their habits. br> — Eric Walter /p>

There’s nothing wrong with “three-strikes” laws. They serve a serious purpose and are a legitimate facet of jurisprudence. They’ve been around in this country at least since the thirties, when old-time gangsters subject to them were called “three-time losers.”

They have nothing to do with baseball, and attempts to minimize and ridicule them are pernicious.

But then again, some people minimize and ridicule all attempts to punish criminals. They use dishonest arguments and sophistries like calling them “cruel and unusual punishment” — which the opponents themselves know is not what the Constitution means by that phrase. In short, their argument is a lie and they know it. But they’re willing to lie in service of a “higher purpose.” That’s the absolute curse the ACLU and such people have inflicted on this country over the past few decades.

I’m not sure, if I had been the judge, I would have invoked the three-time-loser clause in the two (carefully-selected) cases. For one thing, I wouldn’t have bumped Andrade up twice. First his misdemeanor was “enhanced ” to a felony, then he was declared a three-time loser on account of the felony. I think it should be like sales at stores — you can’t compound a discount offer. You can take advantage of one sale price, but then you can’t get an extra discount by offering another coupon or invoking another, separate sale offer. It’s one to a customer.

p>Likewise, I think a criminal’s status should only be enhanced once. He shouldn’t be declared a three-time loser on the basis of his third felony, if the felony was previously enhanced from a misdemeanor. With that proviso, I would be more confident with three-time-loser laws as written and recognized, than with social meddlers who have a hidden axe to grind, in that they oppose all punishment of criminals because they think it’s really society that is to blame. God preserve us from such.