Hmm. I am not a supporter of Three Strikes laws, per se, but there's something intellectually dishonest about that article. For very few of the cases they mention, do they mention what the two previous strikes were. That strongly suggests to me that they're cherry picking which ones they do divulge to be the least serious, and whitewashing the previous criminal histories of the rest.
One may still decide that it's unjust for someone to be sent to prison for, say, shoplifting. But it would be more honest to report, e.g. "two-time convicted rapist sent to life in prison for shoplifting", or whatever.
Any conversation about reforming the Three Strikes laws has to start from getting honest about what problems they were trying to solve and what those cases really look like. Those problems are fundamentally that our system of jurisprudence, which addresses criminal infractions on a case-by-case basis, doesn't really handle people who are committed or incorrigible serial criminals very well.
ETA: "the standard has to be the same for everyone" is exactly wrong, and the problem in a nutshell: that decontextualizing crimes from the lives of the criminals who commit them works really, really poorly.
(no subject)
One may still decide that it's unjust for someone to be sent to prison for, say, shoplifting. But it would be more honest to report, e.g. "two-time convicted rapist sent to life in prison for shoplifting", or whatever.
Any conversation about reforming the Three Strikes laws has to start from getting honest about what problems they were trying to solve and what those cases really look like. Those problems are fundamentally that our system of jurisprudence, which addresses criminal infractions on a case-by-case basis, doesn't really handle people who are committed or incorrigible serial criminals very well.
ETA: "the standard has to be the same for everyone" is exactly wrong, and the problem in a nutshell: that decontextualizing crimes from the lives of the criminals who commit them works really, really poorly.