3 Strikes Law Discrimination

[MJS]

Thoughts on this?
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-baptistprisons0116.artjan16,0,5996365,print.story

The gov. in the state of CT. is reviewing the 3 strikes law. Apparently some ministers feel that this law is unfairly going to target the minorities that are in prison.

Do you feel that this is a case of discrimination or just some people with nothing better to do, than complain about a new law?

 

[jks9199]

Thoughts on this?
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-baptistprisons0116.artjan16,0,5996365,print.story

The gov. in the state of CT. is reviewing the 3 strikes law. Apparently some ministers feel that this law is unfairly going to target the minorities that are in prison.

Do you feel that this is a case of discrimination or just some people with nothing better to do, than complain about a new law?

I think it's neither.

I think it's a case of unintended consequences. For a number of reasons, some just, some not so just... minorities are more heavily represented in the convicted offender population.

It seems like the intended law will be restricted to violent felons. If you get someone who's committed 3 violent felonies... they're not likely to suddenly decide to be nice, contributing members of society. It seems to me like the law is reasonably restricted and targets a dangerous segment of the offender population.

 

[MJS]

I think it's neither.

I think it's a case of unintended consequences. For a number of reasons, some just, some not so just... minorities are more heavily represented in the convicted offender population.

It seems like the intended law will be restricted to violent felons. If you get someone who's committed 3 violent felonies... they're not likely to suddenly decide to be nice, contributing members of society. It seems to me like the law is reasonably restricted and targets a dangerous segment of the offender population.

Well, you're right, I believe it is for violent crimes. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding between the parties mentioned in the article. Maybe they're not understanding fully, what this new law will entail. Then again, maybe they do understand the law.

Gathered in the state Legislative Office Building on what would have been Martin Luther King Jr.'s 79th birthday, the Baptist ministers said a plan seeking automatic life sentences for people convicted of three violent felonies would unfairly target blacks and Latinos, who make up a disproportionate percentage of prison populations.

Looking at that, IMO, it seems like they do understand it, and are admitting that while minorities make up the large population in prison, that it is still targetting them. So, if the majority of violent crimes are committed by minorities, then whos fault is it if they end up in prison? For the record, I do not have stats on the nature/types of crimes committed by each race.

And of course, we all know how well this works.

While attacking Rell's three-strikes plan, the ministers on Tuesday stressed the importance of other measures the legislature is expected to discuss: prison overcrowding; more money for inmate education and job training; and expanding re-entry programs to help people newly released from prison.

IMO, I think that the law is a good thing. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. That applies to everyone, not a select group of people.

 

[Kacey]

I think it's neither.

I think it's a case of unintended consequences. For a number of reasons, some just, some not so just... minorities are more heavily represented in the convicted offender population.

It seems like the intended law will be restricted to violent felons. If you get someone who's committed 3 violent felonies... they're not likely to suddenly decide to be nice, contributing members of society. It seems to me like the law is reasonably restricted and targets a dangerous segment of the offender population.

Well, you're right, I believe it is for violent crimes. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding between the parties mentioned in the article. Maybe they're not understanding fully, what this new law will entail. Then again, maybe they do understand the law.

I agree as well. The original intent of 3 strikes laws in most places was to limit the number of times society would allow serious, violent crimes to be committed by the same person; in application, however, it seems include lesser felonies as well. I'm not saying that drug offenses should be overlooked - just that a third strike for assault or rape creates a different, and much higher, level of concern for me than a third strike for possession of marijuana in quantities appropriate to personal use.

Looking at that, IMO, it seems like they do understand it, and are admitting that while minorities make up the large population in prison, that it is still targetting them. So, if the majority of violent crimes are committed by minorities, then whos fault is it if they end up in prison? For the record, I do not have stats on the nature/types of crimes committed by each race.

And of course, we all know how well this works.

Yes... about as well as a cat on roller skates. This is a serious and significant societal issue, and needs to be addressed as such - but affirmative action is not the answer. There are multiple issues here: minorities are more likely to be poor; minorities are more likely to be undereducated (increasing their chance of being poor); minorities are more likely to live in high crime areas (a consequence of being poor); minorities are more likely to belong to gangs (which tend to be more active in poor areas); etc., etc., etc. Until society as a whole addresses these issues, and finds a way to create change in the underlying issues that create the problem, the overrepresentation of minorities in the legal system, and in various forms of incarceration, are going to continue.

Quote:

While attacking Rell's three-strikes plan, the ministers on Tuesday stressed the importance of other measures the legislature is expected to discuss: prison overcrowding; more money for inmate education and job training; and expanding re-entry programs to help people newly released from prison.

IMO, I think that the law is a good thing. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. That applies to everyone, not a select group of people.

I agree. Only by providing a means to change will change occur; if you remove someone from a situation for inappropriate actions, and return them to the same situation, with no new options for different reactions, then you are going to get the same actions again.