If you've one of the regular readers of this blog, you may have noticed that there is more than one person contributing entries. I made an entry last night about a news article appearing in the LA Times which discussed habitual offender statutes (three strikes laws).
I didn't realize until this morning that Larry had made a response to my post, and had sent me an email with the subject line "Your Turn." I guess he took offense to my remark about opening season, and baseball. I didn't expand upon the baseball metaphor I pointed out. If I had, I would have said that criminal law is not a game, and using a baseball metaphor to sell a three strikes law to the public is a sham.
I sent an email to Larry telling him that his post was too long. Nobody wanted to read all of those statutes. If you haven't read the meat of his initial argument, skip past the statutes. It's there, or at least the beginning of an argument is there.
But, what I want to know is how is Delaware's law different from the California law, which seems to result in some pretty stiff sentences for some fairly harmless crimes? Shouldn't there be some level of proportionality between an offense and a sentence? Isn't there a means of receiving a similar result from a less expensive means of supervision? Wouldn't a lengthy term of probation for the third offense achieve the same result at a fraction of the cost? Can't the failure to rehabilitate be partially blamed upon the state?
So Larry, rather than present my arguments, how about if you anticipate them? Tell me what I might argue, and why it might be wrong. That's the gauntlet I'm laying down.