3 strike law in us does it mater how serious the crimes are

Just wondered if you shoplift 3 times is that the same penalty as say three violent assualts. It just didn't seem logical that they wouldn't scale the crimes to add a little bit of flexibility. Maybe two serious crimes or six very minor ones that type of thing

I could be mistaken but i believe it applys '
to any type of felonys...

I am not familiar with this three strike law thing. I've never heard a thing about it actually.

However the idea itself seems stupid.

"Your Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court, I would just like to say that I only murdered one person. Therefore under the current law, I can only be carted away after I brutally slaughter two more people."

Bob, I love that baby you are sporting! You need to bring it my way so I can ride it around a bit...

There are some instances where I agree with the three strikes your out and others where I think that it is wrong.

No matter how much this subject is debated, the truth is that there is never going to be a clear cut answer.

Sadly, I have seen cases where a drug dealer does more time than a rapist, and my thoughts on that are not so nice.

I would rather my children be offered drugs than raped. The truth of it all is that if I raise my children knowing the truthes and dangers on drugs then they are informed enough to make their own decisions.

However; the victem never has a choice in rape and for the attacker to be back on the street before a man selling oodles of pot... well that just flat ticks me off.

I hate most of the laws here and it is not because I want to break them, but merely I do not think that the laws we do have offer much protection or anything else for that matter to the victems....

With that said I wll get off the subject before I get myself banned.

~~Sher

My friend was pulled over and convicted of drink driving, I'd imagine she was probably on the lower end of the scale drink wise. She said that she was now unable to complete her study for teacher training with children because of the conviction. I've asked her about it but she jus says this is her mistake and it just is so. Has anyone any idea why this is or can enlighten me on the ruling.

I look at it this way, she made a bad decision the first time; however, each time after that she knew the consequences (sp?).

She chose not only to put her own life at risk but also the life of many innocent people including children.

There are way too many deaths among innocent individuals each year due to one person driving while drunk. If they cannot show that they are mature enough not to put lives at risk on a whim then they do not need to in control of my children.

I have no sorrow for someone who makes the same "bad" decision over and over again. To me it is absurd!

My father was involved in a few accidents while drinking and not once would I bail him out of jail. I knew that as long as he remained in a cell that he was safer than if he would have been back out the clubs. Not only was he safer, but everyone out on the streets were safer as well.

I am not against drinking. I have had plenty of parties and drank my share, but I chose to do it responsibly. Everytime I threw a party you had to throw your keys in a jar when you walked in my house. I would not allow someone to leave my house drunk unless they called a cab or had a designated driver.

I even had a few cops come and party with us and they put their keys in the jar along with the rest of us.

One time I drove home after I drank one beer and I was scared to pieces. For me, having a few beers at a bar and then driving is not the risk.

The risk of going to jail or losing my liscense is bad enough, but I will not put an innocent soul in jeopardy because I decided to get drunk on a whim and then drive.

Really, if you cannot trust someone not to put your life in jeopardy then I cannot trust them with my child! End of story

~~exhausted

Sorry misunderstanding she has only been convicted once, it was a seperate question to the thread header