against their victim. Additionally, 5.5% of these offenders with such prior felony convictions were convicted of a new "triggering" offense that involved possession of an illegal weapon such as a firearm. I would ask the same question: why did such offenders have an illegal weapon?

Such statistics make it amply clear that the target group identified under the Three Strikes Law has a high propensity for further violent behavior and will most likely engage in such violent behavior. The statistics also make it clear that the vast majority of "triggering" offenses that give rise to application of the Three Strikes Law would be regarded by the average reasonable person to involve serious antisocial conduct that strikes at the fabric of society's standards of behavior. Such statistics also make it amply clear that the actual enforcement of the law is consistent with application to career criminals.

There are a number of arguments made regarding systemic impact: it will dramatically increase the prison population; it will increase trials in an already overburdened court system; it gives prosecutors too much too little discretion; it fails to consider recidivist statutes that we have; most qualifying three strike priors are nonviolent burglaries, let me respond.

As to the arguments that Three Strikes is something we cannot afford because it will dramatically increase prison populations I would make the following observation. There is no question that economics must play a role in evaluating whether certain programs cost more than the returns they provide. I do not think it is inappropriate to look at the cost of crime reduction in relation to the loss of money for other programs. Such things are valid policy considerations. For example, would a one percent reduction in violent crime that cost $100 million be worth the expenditure if that $100 million had to be removed from education? This is a difficult policy issue. What if that reduction in serious and violent crimes is 10 percent? Where do we draw the line? It places the issue in emotional terms to say that $100 million is too much to pay to possibly save one life

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