We don't have them in Britain. I don't like the sound of it as Crimes should be judged based on the actual crime. It sounds like the 3SL could be unfair easily. Either the punishment for each crime is the right amount in which case adding 3 strikes is OTT or the cumalitive effect is correct in which case by only performing single crimes would allow the crim to get away with a too-small punishment.
It seems to me that American Lawmakers watch too much baseball.

I can't say much about it, but I would support a 3-strike rule here for people who go cd.

Wha- oh, oh. I thought we were just talking about the 3-strike law in phpDiplomacy here, but I guess those work too.

I think the whole idea of mandatory minimums is dangerous. The problem is its hard for a politician to seem "tough on crime" if he lowers minimums. But the fact is, a potential assaulter isn't going to think about whether its five or six years before he hits someone with a beer bottle in a bar.

I think we can have some judicial discretion. If the judge honestly believes that this guy is a career criminal and there is no hope and the streets are better off without him, he should be sent to prison for life after multiple convictions. But if its some guy who punched someone when he was 18 and then smoked pot twice, the judge should be allowed to have leeway to give him an appropriate sentence.

usa amazes me every day :-)

I'll second you on that.

I'm sure there must be reasonable exceptions to 3 strikes. Like parking tickets, self-defense, crimes-to-prevent-bigger-crimes. Is there?

Parking tickets are not a crime.
"to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. "

They must be felony's Parking tickets aren't even minor misdemeanors.

Regarding mandatory minimum sentences, I think those generally are enacted because the voters feel that judges are handing out too many slaps on the wrists. It's a dual edged sword. On the one hand it keeps the judges in line, but on the other it doesn't allow for extenuating circumstances where perhaps the person really does deserve just a slap on the wrist.

The mandatory minimums address the symptom and not the actual problems which are the judges and the criminals. So not an ideal solution. Curing symptoms is short sighted.

i think punishments should accumulate so if you get 5 years for an assualt and then get a year for shop lifting you should serve 6 years then if you get found guilty for another crime worth a year in prision you should serve 7 years etc

I think they idea behind it, however, is serving time isn't serving as a deterrent, and isn't rehabilitating you, so why not throw you in jail forever?