THREEPEATS
Re: Francis X. Rocca’s California
Justice Strikes Out:
Interesting article by Francis Rocca on California’s
three-strikes law. One point that he doesn’t mention, however, is
that for a person with two strikes on him already, the penalty for
shoplifting and the penalty for murder are the same: life in
prison. (The only exception are crimes that draw the death penalty,
and most states inflict capital punishment so infrequently as to
make it pointless as a deterrent.) A person faced with the prospect
of life in the slammer might as well pull a gun and kill the person
who’s attempting to apprehend him: that is the rational choice. Why
not? He literally has nothing to lose.
— Fred Butzen
Unlike your contributor Mr. Francis X. Rocca, I shed no tears for
Leandro Andrade, the repeat criminal convicted of stealing
videotapes and sentenced under the “three strikes” law.
As Mr. Rocca admits, Andrade was convicted of three prior
residential burglaries. There is no way of knowing how many
residential burglaries he committed without a criminal conviction
resulting. I can assure you, however, that if I caught Andrade
breaking into my residence, I would have no qualms about shooting
him dead.
We need “three strikes” laws precisely because someone like
Andrade can commit three residential burglaries and soon be out on
the street again and able to steal the videotapes that (by
charitable mathematics) resulted in his third “strike.”
I do agree with Mr. Rocca on one point. There is no magic in the
number three. Perhaps, given Mr. Rocca’s European residence, he
would be more comfortable with the “Soccer Rule”: Yellow card on
the first felony, red card and permanent removal from the game on
the second.
— J. Menicucci
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 …
— John McGinnis
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.
— Eric Walter
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.
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.
— Larry Eubank
Bloomington, IN
One more adage: “When you are merciful to the wicked, in the end,
you will become wicked to the merciful.”
— David Benveniste, S.F.
WHY THEY RUN
Re: Paul Beston’s
The Sweet Taste of Humble Pie:
Having completed my first marathon (The Marine Corps Marathon in
D.C.) at the ripe young age of 48, Mr. Beston’s insights succinctly
encapsulated the answers to the frequent questions of some family,
friends and coworkers who, during my months of training, attempted
to convince me that this was not the wisest endeavor I have ever
undertaken. They could not understand what would possess someone to
spend months training for something that most surely would pain —
and a lot of it.
To answer their “Why?” I simply say, “Veni. Curri. Fini.” (I
came. I ran. I finished.)
— Rick Osial
Arlington, VA
I have run over 30 marathons and while I no longer do them, I still
do miss them. Thanks, Paul, for putting some of the thoughts and
emotions down in a way I could not have. The marathon is a grand
race but to realize it you almost have to do it.
— Roger Ross
Tomahawk, WI
EGO ACID TRIPS
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s
Charlatans’ Progress:
I like the old, acid test for historians (but cannot recall who
penned it): “No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own
mistakes deserves to be called a scholar.” Of course, facts never
stand in the way of libs like Bellesiles, Goodwin, Ellis and their
ilk when they attempt to give credence to bizarre political
views.
— Brooks Hughes
GRUNGY GRANHOLM
Re: The Washington Prowler’s
Last Ditch Dirt:
I suppose dirt is in the eye of the beholder. Here in Michigan
faux Republicans — including former governor William Milliken,
whom the UAW suffered to be elected in exchange for his thralldom
and the Detroit News which has taken to assigning its Bush
hating activist lesbian columnist to “straight” political news
reporting — are loose again. The governor and the Gannett paper
are professing shock, shock that the Republican gubernatorial
candidate, Richard Posthumus, has called out the Democrats’
Jennifer Granhlom, a Canadian landed immigrant, on her endorsement
of slavery reparations and claim to be a believing Catholic
although pro-abortion. (She announced her reparations stance at a
primary appearance before the Detroit NAACP — along with the other
Democratic candidates, former governor James Blanchard and Yorkie
David Bonior — and because the Republicans have it on television
tape, her attempts at retrenching have been limited to a “it
depends on the meaning of what is, is” defense.)
Although the holier than thou Brahmins say they deplore
Posthumus’ “racist” and “divisive” appeals, it is difficult to
follow their logic. Granholm is not telling the truth in one
instance or the other about believing money should be paid as
reparations — she actually mentions money on the tape — and
shouldn’t that be considered by voters, even if they are not
disturbed by her desire to pay taxpayer funds as a windfall to one
group of Americans. (Could any thing be more divisive?)
Furthermore, are not voters entitled to be allowed to infer that if
Granholm is not faithful to the tenets of her Church that she may
break her faith with them — as all Republicans have such good
reason to remember from a similar, seemingly attractive but, alas,
amoral political couple. Unfortunately, the behavior of these
moderate Republicans reminds me that today the last resort of a
scoundrel who is losing on his merits is to claim his opponent is a
racist or is-ugh- being “divisive.”
— J. R. Wheatley
REAL TREAT
Re: Michael Craig’s No
Treat for Steve Case:
Michael Craig makes good points, both about Steve Case and about
the creepy Ted Turner. Love it!
— Larry Eubank
Bloomington, IN
BIG VALLEY
Re: Jeremy Lott’s Going
Somewhere:
Mr. Lott appears to have misspell-checked — the Valley wants to
succeed at secession, not succession.
As to the Californian Civil War Lott hints at in the last
paragraph, that is awful to contemplate; lots of us are responsible
gun owners and good shots, to boot, but lots of others (e.g.
Hollywood) would be looking for the firearms’ cupholders.
— Lee A. Tichenor
