The three strikes law started because of the death of Polly Klaas. Yes, Richard Allen Davis deserved what he got, but the parents of Polly did not mean for the law to go how it is today. Most of the people that are in prison for their third strike are young and in need of help. Judges need to look at each case and person, not some law that say "you've done three felonies, lets putin in the pin for 25 years to life." Most of these people did not do violent crimes and should not be sitting in prison for the rest of their life. Let them get help first, then decided. And no, sitting in prison is not helping; not the help that they NEED.

 I agree it should be reformed. The first crime should be punished swiftly, and with appropriate punishment to the crime, period. Three strikes-- hey it's not a ballgame. Accountability will come when it's required and no sooner with human beings. Criminals should be accountable the first time, and society accountable for meting out appropriate punishment and reform measures the first time. That's the second chance right there.

 This is another example of good intentions gone awry. In theory the three Stikes issue was a good thing. If people do not learn from there mistakes, then they are bound to repeat them and with that thought process, three strikes and your out. Our society however is not as perfect as thoughts may at first seem. There is the issue of the cocaine sellers and the time they do as opposed to the crack cocaine sellers and the triple time the severe for what, both are selling drugs and both cocaine but one is more highly addictive but that is not part of the three strikes! Nor is the crime committed, if someone did three armed robberies with assault is it the same as someone selling three bags of cocaine because three bags of crack-cocaine is a much more serious offense. It is sad that your Father did not have the foresight to now how your missing of him would create such an emptiness in you and your life. It is also sad to think that his knowingly wrong and criminal actions which were punishable by incarceration and not once, where I am sure he was incarcerated and not twice did he do the crime and incarceration but three times he did not learn that what he was doing was against the law and that he had be jailed and incarcerated for this and warned that one more time and that was the final straw that he didn't think that if he got caught twice if he repeated the action again he would be incarcerated for a long long time? Some people that do not learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them! I am sorry for you and hope that you have learned from this very harsh lesson for which your actions contributed nothing but an empty heart. As the song goes, Teach your children well!

 The 3 strikes law does seem to be very harsh. I thought the 3 strikes law was new, and your dad has been in prison for 20 yrs so it can't really have applied to him. It's harsh, but if you do something wrong and get caught you have to take the consequences. He would have known what he was doing when he made his 'bad choices'. The worst thing about it is that you are suffering for your parent's mistake.

 I think with the three strikes rule they should consider the crime when sentencing.there's people in prison for 20 years for things such as embezzlement yet theres murders who only serve ten and some make parole before that,the judicial system seriously is corrupt in my opinion I'm not for committing crimes but some of the consequences do not match the punishment that is given to some.

 The 3 strike law is not a good idea it is like a crime killing someone or hang some one

 As someone else stated, the Three Strikes Law is only good in theory. However, its adoption in conjunction with structured sentencing guidelines has created great disparities in sentencing. For example, a young person is convicted on misdemeanor marijuana charges three times - this person is now screwed for doing something that wasn't really that bad in the grand scheme of things. Or consider another person who is convicted of selling marijuana twice, then convicted of selling a very small amount of crack cocaine - again, a transgression against society that is just not that serious in the grand scheme of things. But this guy may spend 20 years behind bars. And at what cost to the taxpayers?

Everyone is so quick to condemn an offender for his or her actions, but they rarely want to know these people's stories. Were they living in poverty, couldn't get a job, and saw drugs as a way to make money? Were they victimized as young children? Are they living in a single-parent household where the one parent works two jobs to make ends meet, making it virtually impossible for the parent to be able to supervise his/her children? Does this individual live in an inner-city area where he/she cannot gain respect through conventional means (i.e., job, home ownership, education, etc), but can gain respect through committing crimes?

These are legitimate questions, and criminological research has consistently found relationships between crime and these things: Poverty/welfare receipt, low formal education, low SES, parental supervision/control, victimization, attaining respect and dignity. It seems like that money going into building private prisons could be diverted to impoverished, troubled neighborhoods and we would all reap a greater social benefit in terms of lowered crime rates.

 Yes, if they could've afforded a good lawyer, at least half would not be there.
This law needs to be corrected immediately. So many young men and women too young to know the circumstances and results of their actions. Also older people as well. It is a travesty if you know this law. Now they are a prisoner of the prison system.

 How many prisons have to be built near your child's school before you wake up and see that these so-called legal minds have bent you over yet again without so much as a kiss. If they want to spend money on crime let's build Vo-tech's that may accidentally reform and make productive citizens out of many of them. Every time I hear some arrogant assed cop on the TV talk about sending someone to prison to meet ol Bubba I want to snatch the life out of that boy. This country is totally screwed up and these breeding grounds that courts use need to be torn down and rethought. Granted some people belong there but there are far too many that use to be good people until they encountered the legal system who will come out looking to rape, rob, pillage and burn. Let's throw some cops and judges in there to get a taste of their little rehab centers. Maybe then they would get it. And those who blindly follow what those idiots tell you need a dose of reality too. There are more corrupt individuals running those courtrooms and jails than people in prison. Clean up the copping business and you would fill those prisons to capacity with cops alone!

 The three strikes law is a good idea, but definitely needs some adjustments, and redefinition. There needs to be some type of case by case guide lines, any type of violent crime should be automatic. But other lesser crimes some don't merit the three strikes rule. But as the saying goes " You Play, You Pay ".

 If a person is in prison for a long time and his charge was not that much serious then this is the case where legal system need some amendments. There are many people who are in prison for a minor charge. So government must change this system to give relief to ordinary people.

 Horrible law!!! Check this out, three strikes law does not mean the same offence 3x. Nor does it mean only for murderers rapist, molesters. What it means is if you carry an illegal knife in your car for protection in an ungodly area that you have to drive through and get pulled over and they discover you have priors, should that person have to serve a 25 year sentence? Well that was the third strike, possession of a deadly weapon, ooo. A lot of people make bad choices, it does not make you a bad person!it means if you are bad once your rights are gone and your a liar ,no good for society. But the man who molested your 7 year old daughter for the first time gets 2 years on his first offence and put back on the street 8 months later. Had good 3 meals with no bills and protection by police from other inmates. You got to remember something here folks, some of these people go to prison for beating these people up. And what is on their record doesn't show the circumstances of why who what and all the others that go with it. It called manslaughter. Even if the person wasn't hospitalized!why because
society has to protect everyone. Sometimes if it weren't for these inmates there wouldn't be justice. But the innocence of a child would be gone and the man who beat up the molester is doing 14 yrs.

 The problem with three strikes is the same as mandatory sentencing it removes all reason and rationality to streamlines all crime into clear cut black and white rules and guidelines that remove commonsense and judicial leeway . Nothing in this world is absolute black or white we need a system that is able to accommodate all shades of grey in between

 Its amazing to me how politicians" package good intentions;3 strikes law was sold to the people as a law to keep the so called career criminal off the streets and in prison-- oops! All it did was help speed up the all ready over crowded prisons.peaple with 2 felonies
went to prisnon four stealin a cup cake--4 life!! All in the name of good intentions.

 Uhhhh......dangit i missed the point here,nut i think your dad should get out and probably stay with you.How long he's been there?

 Yes the 3 strike law is not a good idea it all depends on the crime like killing someone then you have smaller crimes like drugs to me they are totally different.

 This is similar to the old "wise words" fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me fool me three times and shame on everyone? Mistakes are mistakes, however, crimes being related to as "mistakes" is attempting to "lighten" the fact that the law was in fact broken, for whatever reason if it is a third time when will a person not have a "reason"? And just because no one individuals life was "taken" does that mean the crimes had no victim? That is the purpose of 3 strikes your out. So that individuals who seem unable or unwilling to stop repeatedly offending will at some point not be able to return to society to continue threatening communities with their actions. Having to accept the consequences of our actions especially repeated offenses is one of the most difficult we learn growing up but if you grow up and never learn it it cannot be everyone else's responsibility to continue to give you more consideration that we give even our children as we teach them and raise them -unless they are the parents creating these adults in the first place maybe?

 This is a simple concept and a catchy slogan, intended to make it easy for those would-be criminals to understand that there would be severe consequences, and thus would act as a deterrent.
But people commit crimes for different reasons and under different circumstances. That is why we need a judge and jury to examine each case to arrive at a fair sentence. We need humans to understand the action of another human. But this simplistic law ties the hand of the judge and imposes automatic harsh punishment where it is not deserved. It’s like the robot justice, where fairness does not exist.
As a result, jurors tend to be over-lenient for fear of making people endure undeserved punishment. So, many real criminals go free. Or, they turn a blind eye, and minor criminals get the book thrown at them, as maybe in this case. Some jurors have remorse after the case, but have to live with the guilt the rest of their lives; and the prisoner and his family suffer and become bitter at society.
Where is the justice? We should reform this mindless, rigid and inhumane law.