3 Strikes

Well i have had a good bit of conversations here lately dealing with the 3 strikes rule that some of the states use in this country. And then whole idea comes into the conversation about the practice of increasing the sentence for each offense.

Now when i tell my side, people look at me like i am some sort of Kook. I don't care, let people think what they will.

I believe that the 3 strikes law is Unconstitutional. I also believe that having an increased punishment system for each offense committed is also Unconstitutional. I know some of you are getting ready to start cursing me out on that statement alone. But i will explain.

Picture this for me. You are caught speeding, 50mph in a 45mph zone. You are given a ticket for $50 and 2 points on your license. So you pay the fine and the points come off of your license. So 2 months later you are caught speeding again, once again doing 50mph in a 45mph zone. So what is the punishment? If i am not mistaken it is the exact same as the first offense, am i right? Yes you are given the same exact punishment as the first offense. But what happens if this happens again?

Now this is a very minor example to most people. Most people think that speeding isn't a crime, but it is. It is a crime against society just the same as murder and rape. Now you will say that these don't even fit in the same category, true, but every law in this country is "on the books" for society, therefore any breaking of those laws constitutes committing a crime against society. Some of you will disagree, but this is the way it is. Now most people think that the lower the class of a crime, the less important it is. You have Felonies, Misdemeanors, and Traffic Offenses. But every crime is a crime, and just because most people think that speeding is not a crime, doesn't mean that society is any less at risk because of this behavior. If you speed and say you take your eyes off of the road for a second (which 2 crimes are committed here Speeding and Reckless Driving, but very minor crimes in most peoples eye) and you hit another car and kill or Mame a passenger in that car. You committing minor crimes just escalated into another more serious crime. So every crime is the same in the laws eyes.

But back to my original point. If you are caught speeding a third time, would you agree with the legal system taking your driving privilege away for the rest of your life? Now i know that most of the readers here would say no, but why? It is because you have been punished previously for each of the offenses and have paid for those offenses. And since you have paid for those offenses you should not be punished again for the crime. Correct?

But these are the same people that look at a rapist and say that if he is punished for the first crime and gets out of jail then commits the crime again feel that he should get a bigger punishment for the second crime (say he gets 10 years for the first offense, but they believe he should get 15 years for the second). Then if he get out after the second offense's punishment and commits the same crime again, these people believe that he should remain in jail for the rest of his life.

Now don't get me wrong and think that i support people that commit these types of crimes, because i don't. I believe that everyone that commits a crime should be punished for that crime. But increasing punishment based on the number of previous crimes, is punishing the person for a crime that has already been punished, so if the crime has been punished and the person has completed all of the punishment handed to them, how can they be punished for that crime again? It sounds like Double Jeopardy, to me, which it strictly outlawed by the Constitution.

It is only a matter of time before these type of increasing punishment is used on all crimes, no matter how serious.

Viva Liberty!