I’m a big believer in parole over just locking people up. It incentivizes people to fix their shit in prison. And while it should be tough to get out of prison early for people who’ve committed serious crimes, it should be possible. I’m also not sure 3 strikes legislation, or in Washington’s case initiative, is a particularly helpful in reducing crime. It might make sense to go with something more grounded in crime prevention than sports metaphors. So, I’m glad that the Washington Sentencing Commission is proposing this, even if it has approximately 0 chance of passing the GOP Senate:
Three-strikes offenders serving life in prison without the possibility of parole should get a “second look.” That’s the position of Washington’s Sentencing Guidelines Commission.
It voted Friday to recommend a new review process for these prison inmates.
This is a non-binding proposal to the Washington Legislature. It basically says three-strikes inmates should be able to petition for early release after 20 years behind bars. Aggravated murderers would not qualify. A special “Second Look Review Board” would consider the petitions.
It has been over 2 decades since Washington passed the 3 strikes law. Even with the state becoming more liberal, I don’t imagine it would have much trouble passing again. Certainly, there will be victims who don’t want this sort of thing, and I’m not here to tell them how to feel.
Still, I hope the Legislature takes a good look at giving people another chance. It’s not even just for the criminals who should get another chance, or the cost of keeping reformed people behind bars. It’s as much about the kind of society we want to build. I’d like to build one where people can genuinely get out of prison.
In principle, I like the idea of a review process, but as always, the devil is in the details. I support the basic concept of the 3-strikes law, which is to remove career criminals from the streets permanently, so they can’t continue preying on innocent citizens. But it should be applied only to violent crimes. If a purse snatcher punches an elderly person and snatches a purse containing $1, that’s a violent crime; the issue isn’t the amount of money stolen but the amount of injury inflicted and the vulnerability of the victim. Society’s first duty is to protect the innocent, especially those who can’t defend themselves (children, elderly, disabled, etc.). Criminals who habitually target the weak and vulnerable may well deserve life sentences, but the real issue is not what they deserve, but what’s necessary to protect society from them. If someone gets locked away under 3 strikes, does a significant amount of time, is a model prisoner, and can convince a review board they’re no longer a threat to society, then I’m not opposed to providing a path to supervised release, maybe to be followed by unconditional release if they successfully reenter society. It’s basically the same concept as giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. All killers should be ineligible, though, not just those convicted of aggravated murder.
@2 I disagree with the 3 strikes and any mandatory sentencing. Judges should be able to do their jobs as judges. Occassionally one will make a bad call. There is no evidence the 3 strike removes career criminals from the streets, perhaps it gives us better criminals.
We have today a lot of elderly prisoners and will have more. Even those who committed a vicious crimes at 60 is no longer a threat to society and is unlikely to commit an armed robbery, but geriatric prisoners have all the issues geriatric parents have and there will be more geriatric prisoners in the years to come, and we taxpayers will be handed the bill. Something tough on crime politicians overlook is the real cost of their policies. Same is true with the war on drugs with or without 3 strikes we are paying a hefty bill. Guess we would rather pay for prisons than education.
Must not be a whole lot of Democratic criminals on here as Puddy says there are on here. You would think out of self interest there would some discussion on here. Which is of course why all good men should have an interest in this subject. The government could flex its power and good men could find themselves facing three strikes. Marched in a protest? Got arrested for that public disobedience? A little slight of hand and that is a strike…do it three times and the man in robes must sentence you to life. Or should they have latitude?