pizza theft was not stealing a slice of pizza from the counter at Pizza Hut. Rather, he stole a pizza from four children by intimidation (the defendant is 6'4" 220 lbs.; his four victims were 7-15 year old children). This is normally referred to as a strong-arm robbery. If it had been $8 in cash instead of a pizza which cost $8 would there be a different attitude? Since when do we categorize the magnitude of harm in a robbery by the value of the thing taken? If one of the children who was a victim had been knocked down, hit his head and died it would have been a capital offense.

Another argument in this context is that most new felonies that qualify a defendant to be treated as a second or third strike offender are for nonviolent property and drug crimes. This argument generally obscures the issue by giving an example that involves a nonviolent, low-grade crime such as stealing some item that would be a petty theft (property valued at less than $400). Generally the example takes the form of "he got 25 years to life for stealing a tire or for being in possession of one balloon of heroin, a victimless crime." This type of argument needs to be placed in context of what it includes in the catchall of "nonviolent property and drug crimes."

Clearly, a simple theft crime such as grand theft (stealing property of another of a value over $400) or petty theft with a prior petty theft or prior felony might reasonably be placed in the category of nonviolent theft offenses. However, such categorization as "nonviolent property crimes" usually places residential burglary and burglary in general as offenses included within the nonviolent theft category. I would point out that burglary stands apart from general theft related offenses because it is not by definition just related to theft. "Crimes involving drugs" also obscures the issue because it lumps simple possession of narcotics in the same category as sale of narcotics and possession for sale. These are, by most reasonable interpretations, far more serious than just simple possession and bear far more scrutiny than "just drug crimes."

It is correct that 5.5% of such third strike offenders and 9.9% of second-strike offenders fall within the Three Strikes Law because their triggering offense is a crime

Next Page
or go to... 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39
40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48