The Answer is- "A torn Achilles tendon".

[TLEberle]

A little update- the suspect is going to be playing 3 Strikes at her trial....

I have zero sympathy for this lady...or for her prior meth addiction.  Those are choices she made.

Cut off her hands and move on.

Sorry, but in this country we have these teeny tiny things called due process and the Eighth Amendment. Yes, she is a bur-diddly-urglar, but we don't cut off people's hands, even if they rob our beloved game show hosts. If she's dumb enough to be given two scholarships to the Graybar Hotel with the knowledge that the next one is a red card, that's on her.

[PYLdude]

I'd say, based partly on this, that three strikes laws Just Don't Work. Why have them if they don't have the effect intended?

I'd also say I would hate to live in a world ruled by Mark Odor...ruthlessness, holy crap.

[TLEberle]

I'd say, based partly on this, that three strikes laws Just Don't Work. Why have them if they don't have the effect intended?

You're basing Three Strikes failure on the fact that a meth-head wants to feed her addiction really really badly, or just plain forgot how to count to three: is that about the size of it?

[PYLdude]

No, I'm basing it on the fact that she's just another in the long line of offenders who just aren't deterred by the stiff sentence for strike three.

[clemon79]

I'd say, based partly on this, that three strikes laws Just Don't Work. Why have them if they don't have the effect intended?

Um, ostensibly, she's not going to have the opportunity to do something illegal for a fourth time.

I'd say that's the effect intended.

[clemon79]

No, I'm basing it on the fact that she's just another in the long line of offenders who just aren't deterred by the stiff sentence for strike three.

Okay, so in one breath you're complaining that Mark is a ruthless bastard for his "chop her hands off" line, and in this one, you're complaining that life in prison isn't enough.

So, which is it? What would you propose, then, if you don't think Three Strikes is a viable solution?

'Cuz to me, it serves two purposes: a) while, yes, it doesn't deter the career criminals, I bet it *does* deter some people. Which is better than deterring *no* people. And b) as I said before, for those people who *are* going to offend over and over and over again, it (again, ostensibly) limits the number of offenses to three.

[J.R.]

If someone robbed Pat Sajak, it's because they couldn't afford the vowels!

See what I did?!

/Trying to lighten the mood.

[PYLdude]

Chris, watch for the plane. And when it flies over your head, change the batteries in your Klauss-Gibson. They're corroded. It's called a sarcastic joke. I don't know where you might've thought I was being serious.

But to answer the question hidden in the Bag O'Snark, stiffer sentences for certain offenses would sure be a start. You and I see the effects from two angles. Yours is it works because even though it isn't perfect it keeps repeat offenders off the street which is its most basic intent. I say the law should be more of a deterrent because it at least appears to say "keep effing up, keep staying in jail for a long time." But it isn't as effective as it should be if it doesn't appear to make a significant dent ( which to me it doesn't) OR if it isn't universally applied (you'd think every state would be all over this and less than half have these laws).

[clemon79]

You and I see the effects from two angles. Yours is it works because even though it isn't perfect it keeps repeat offenders off the street which is its most basic intent. I say the law should be more of a deterrent because it at least appears to say "keep effing up, keep staying in jail for a long time." But it isn't as effective as it should be if it doesn't appear to make a significant dent ( which to me it doesn't) OR if it isn't universally applied (you'd think every state would be all over this and less than half have these laws).

Okay, but that doesn't sound like an issue with Three Strikes itself, that sounds like your complaint is that the first two strikes aren't harsh enough. Do I have that right?

'Cuz if I do it sounds like we agree a lot more than we disagree. I'm merely treating them as two separate issues for the purposes of this discussion.

[PYLdude]

You could say that about my first point if you wanted to. Definitely has merit. I was leaning more toward if the sentences were harsher on certain offenses they would cancel out a lot of the need for said three strike laws.

The disagreement you and I have here is over the key point as to whether or not the law is an effective deterrent.

[clemon79]

The disagreement you and I have here is over the key point as to whether or not the law is an effective deterrent.

Well, perhaps, but if my choices are a) have it and limit the number of times offenders can repeat, or b) not have it and have these people go back and forth through a revolving door and hurt more people in the process, I'm good with (a).

(Now, the issue with a "life sentence" not really being a life sentence due to early paroles and prison overcrowding and such, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. But I think the basic principle is a good and useful thing, whether or not it actually deters.)

[WarioBarker]

Accused thief's defense: "I'm a prostitute."

...

Suddenly, that porno parody topic doesn't seem all that weird.