REPLY TO 4 POST BELOW AT LEAST 100WORDS EACH:

REFENCES QUESTION AND POST ANSWERS:

1. After reading The Joy of Economics and Freakonomics text on crime, do you support the idea of"three-strike" lawsas an effective strategy indealing with non-violent felonies (which are often drug-related)? To hopefully avoid any confusion, "three-strike" laws are generally considered to be a harsh/severe approach based on the idea of being "tough on crime", and are not generally considered to be a merciful/compassionate approach to dealing with non-violent felons.

2a. If you support applying "three-strike" laws to non-violent felonies, why do you think sending repeat offenders to prison for life is an effective long-term strategy for dealing with non-violent felonies (especially given the high annual cost of incarceration)?

2b. If you don't support applying "three-strike" laws to non-violent felonies, what else could be done to discourage those who have committed multiple non-violent felonies from continuing in a pattern of crime?

POST NEED TO COMMENT

Allyson Ballard . . . 4:57pm 1. No, I don't think "three-strike" laws are an effective strategy in dealing with non-violent felonies. Besides the fact that three-strike laws are too harsh for what they're dealing with, they just don't work. Marginal benefit is a powerful factor in all kinds of decision-making, and if individuals believe the benefit of committing non-violent felonies exceeds the cost even slightly, those felonies are going to be committed. Extreme punishments are nothing new and yet crime persists. 2b. Three-strike laws do nothing to interrupt the cycle that enforces crime in the first place (a cycle which often employs factors like unemployment, poverty, or lack of education to keep people dependent on crime). Individuals committing non-violent felonies are typically only hurting themselves. Theft, for example, hurts others financially, but finances can be fixed and the thief is the one who will be continually hurt (by danger associated with coming into contact with law enforcement, by jail sentences, felonies on records hurting future employment, etc) because they must be dependent on crime or else there would be no reason to commit it. So, they would benefit from consequences that work to stop the cycle, like through rehabilitation or employment help.Brittany First Monday Three strikes and you're out? I do not believe that having a three-strike law is benecial to society as a whole. I do believe in punishment that is given with the same severity as the crime committed After reading the text, I would expect criminals to act in a waythat would be reective of where they are with their committed crimes stamp card. As the text explained, if criminals were on their rst or second offense, they may not care about the severity ot their punishment because they know they can get out and return to their lives, As also stated. if on their third strike, they may commit an even larger offense as leaving a life of crime is not as simple as deciding not to do it anymore, 2b. I truly believe in supporting our cizens. It is important to understand that if we want to have a society with reduced crime statistics then we need to provide those who have a proclivity to a life of crime the opportunity to make different choices. We need to be hard on the issue of crime but supportive ofthe people. Many who turn to a life of crime do so because it is all they know. cycles are not broken in households. Ifgiven the opportunity to go to wellefunded schools, have food in their stomachs. electricity and water bills paid, and clothes on their backs, people would be less likely to be driven to extremes. I also believe that this solution would help reduce the demand for drugs as many abuse drugs to forget their trauma or selftreat mental illness. If we support our people with stability and opportunity I believe there would be a great reduction in illegal activity in addition to a healthier society. Lea Bahner . . . Monday Three Strikes and That's Alright 1. Ultimately, based on the assigned readings, I do not support the idea of a "three-strike" law. While there definitely needs to be punishments for those who commit crimes, there shouldn't be an automatic life sentence (or severe punishment that far outweighs the crime committed) for three strikes. Since the crimes the law would refer to are non-violent, severe punishments don't seem to be a good match for the crime. 2b. Perhaps there could be a fine increase, or a short-term prison stay punishment for those with three strikes. Make it get progressively more difficult to commit those non- violent crimes, but don't implement such a harsh punishment. With the issue of drug dealing specifically, maybe it would deter people from continuing. They can start selling drugs and keep going until they're caught. Then they pay the fine or serve their sentence, then they do it again. Same cycle. Then the third time. The fine could go up, or the prison sentence increase (but not to lifetime, unless the crime significantly warrants it). Hopefully, this will cause the marginal cost to outweigh the marginal benefit over time. For those dealers that aren't fully in it for the long run committedly, they may stop dealing after their two or three strikes. The MC becomes more than the MB. For those that are in it to win it, it may not deter them quite as much, but hopefully it would weed out a lot of dealers. And if the punishment level goes up again after the fifth or sixth offense, it would probably deter even more people. So, ultimately, I would advocate for a bit of increased punishment after three strikes, but not as significant a rise as the "three-strike" law would impose.Jillian Knoll Monday Three Strikes and You're Not Out 1. I do not support three-strike laws as a strategy in dealing with non-violent felonies. It does make some sense to impose stricter punishments on repeat offenders, but a life sentence is too harsh, especially for nonviolent offenders. For one, the punishment does not seem to fit the crime. Additionally, the readings explain that overly harsh punishments can have negative consequences. Repeat offenders with two strikes might shift to more violent, extreme crimes because a third felony conviction would result in a life sentence regardless of the crime. It could mean an increase in more violent crimes across the board. Is this worth potentially deterring other nonviolent crimes? It is a valid question, but in my opinion the benefits do not outweigh the costs. 2. Instead of applying current three-strike laws to nonviolent crimes, there could still be increasing levels of punishment that do not include life in prison. For example, imposing a heavy fine or more years in prison depending on the severity of the offense and number of repeats could work. If the benefit of criminal activities does not outweigh the cost for the criminal anymore, there will likely be a decrease in these activities. For nonviolent, drug-related crimes, the approach California took seems to bean effective solution. There, they offered treatment programs as an alternative to imprisonment. It even ended up saving the Californian taxpayer money in the end, according to a UCLA study. This method ultimately tackles the root of the problem and is both humane and effective. Reply