Three Strikes Reform for Florida
Florida has a three strikes law, of sorts. Unfortunately, it’s a watered down law, not unlike the one Jerry Keenan tried to con California voters into adopting last year to spring his son out of the joint. One problem with Florida’s law is that it requires strike three to be a violent offense, just like the first two. Another is that it requires strike three to occur within five years of the conviction or release under strike two. But its fatal flaw – literally – is that it does not include residential burglary.
John Evander Couey, the alleged murderer of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, has a rap sheet a mile long. According to FoxNews, he’s been arrested for burglary 24 times. It doesn’t say how many times he was actually charged or convicted of the crime, apart from the 1978 “hot” burglary that resulted in two years’ imprisonment and eight years of parole. Nor is it clear from existing records how the 1991 case, in which he was arrested in Kissimmee for fondling a child under age 16, was ultimately resolved. It is widely reported that Couey was required to register as a sex offender, so presumably that meant he had at least one prior conviction based on some sex offense, presumably indecent exposure. Whatever is total number of convictions may be, I think it’s a pretty safe bet the total is higher than three, making it plenty to put him away for good under California’s existing “three strikes” law – though probably not under the watered-down version version the criminal lobby attempted to con us into enacting last fall.
Meanwhile, somewhere in California, a family you’ve never heard of is playing in a park with their photogenic 9-year-old daughter, who you’ve also never heard of and never will. Instead, she’ll grow up to lead an ordinary, boring life just like everyone else, blissfully ignorant of the sick monster who didn’t get to rape or murder her three weeks ago because he was and is rotting in Folsom over a string of “nonviolent” offenses. You’ll never know if that is your daughter, but just in case, why not send a big “thank you” to Mike Reynolds, Marc Klaas, Bill Jones, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and an equally big “fuck you” to Joe Klaas, Jerry Keenan, and the ACLU.
March 21st, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Almost all serial killers are middle-aged single white men with many common characteristics. If we jailed all such men, we’d prevent virtually all serial killings. Thanks to the jerks who have refused to jail all such men, hundreds of women have died at the hands of serial killers in the past few years.
As far as I can tell, that’s the same logic your using to justify three-strikes laws. At a certain point, additional safety isn’t worth the cost.
For ever person “saved” by the three strikes law, dozens of poor families who can’t afford lawyers lose members for the rest of their lives for mistakes/screw-ups that we wouldn’t put a white-collar criminal in jail for. And we end up footing the bill for imprisoning tens of thousands of individuals who are no threat whatsoever to anyone.
There are thousands of people in jail for life for being businessmen — for selling a product for which there is massive demand in this country. That’s what the three strikes laws really do.
That’s not protection — that’s laziness. Lazy government, lazy policing, and lazy public policy.
March 21st, 2005 at 1:52 pm
If I were as ignorant on the topic as you are, I’d post anonymously, too.
March 21st, 2005 at 5:13 pm
I’m certainly not surprised that you’re dismissive of my concerns, since that’s what the three-strikes laws are — the dismissive solution. They’re perfect for you.
March 21st, 2005 at 5:28 pm
I’m not dismissive of legitimate concerns. I am dismissive of ignorant, unfounded ones. Do you have a source for your claim that “almost all” serial killers are white, middle aged males, or only for the number of Virginia and Maryland residents who died because Baltimore PD Charles Moose falsely assumed the two young black D.C. snipers were one white, middle-aged male? And where did you get the rubbish about most three strikers being mere drug dealers, when drug dealing doesn’t qualify as a “serious” or “violent” felony at all?
A few minutes of Googling could have set you straight and prevented you from embarassing yourself publicly, albeit anonymously, yet you couldn’t be bothered to do that before sounding off. All this makes me the lazy and dismissive one? Feh.
March 21st, 2005 at 7:11 pm
Well thanks for actually responding.
I think that the mistake Chief Moose made is the same one three-strikes laws make — they extrapolate too far, and do more harm than good. And that was the point of my initial post, made several times over. If you’re saying Chief Moose shouldn’t have steriotyped his suspects based on past profiles, because that caused harm, why are you so eager to type-cast people with three strikes laws?
Further, in your post you explicity mocked concerns over jailing “nonviolent” (your quotes) offenders under three-strikes laws; if you in fact are only interested in applying three-strikes laws to violent offenders, your post implied otherwise.
Three strikes laws are part of a larger trend to increase jail times; that trend is primarily bothersome to me with regard to non-violent crimes especially drug crimes. However, California’s particular three-strikes law, as you’ve shown, does fairly well at only applying three strikes to violent/sex crimes (with one obvious exception, “robbery” — I’d like to see that applied to Ken Lay, etc).
The California law does appear to exclude drug crimes (perhaps because drug crimes already have insanely long sentences; I admit my reaction came in part from the gut, against arbitrarily long sentences generally, after recently seeing a man go to jail in Texas for 50 years for acquiring painkillers with a fake perscription). So But I admit that that the particular California law you’re talking about doesn’t specifically put drug dealers in jail for unjustly long periods.
Anyway, we’re probably shouting past each other on this one; I think you want to jail people for crimes they only might commit, and you think I want to forego protecting children. We each think the other is ignorant for wanting to cause what we each think are such obviously avoidable harms.
March 21st, 2005 at 8:36 pm
I think you have the definition wrong. Ken Lay may well be guilty of larceny (stealing), but there’s no evidence he committed robbery (stealing by force, or threat thereof). If someone points a gun at you and says “your money or your life,” and you comply, you’ve been robbed. If you go home to find the place looted, you haven’t been.
Bear in mind that California’s three strikes law is widely regarded as the toughest in the nation. Most other states’ laws, including Florida’s, are much less strict.
In any event, I don’t think people ought to be imprisoned solely because of what they may do in the future. However, I have no problem at all with coming down hard on those for whom criminality is not a rare youthful indiscretion, but a way of life. Of course not all, or even most, of these offenders turn out like the thug inspired this post or the two similar cases that inspired California’s law a decade ago. But some do, and equally importantly, most continue to lead a life of crime. Once a criminal, always a criminal? Not necessarily; some are scared straight after the first week in prison. Once a recidivist, always a recidivist? You betcha.
BTW, California’s three strikes law is actually much tougher than that of most other states, if not all. I doubt you can find a single state that has a law that treats typical drug offenses as strikes. But if you can, by all means post that information here. I promise to generate as much negative publicity for that three strikes law as I’ve attempted to do positive for California’s.
November 3rd, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Hello everyone,
My name is Damian Garcia. I am also a RSO. My crime was of the “R&j”, where I was 18, and she was 15. I’m no longer supervised (probation, parole, DOC), so I live a relatively sane life. Here is my current predicament (other than being on the registry): they have my information misrepresented on their site!! I committed my crime June /2000 and was sentenced Feb/2001. I violated my probation twice. Once in 2002, and again in 2003. My first violation was a drug charge. (I used cocaine to escape the pain, and only started using after the sex charge occured), and in 2003, I refused to do an “in-jail” treatment program. (the judge sided with me and let do an outside program, which I successfully completed, but the violation stuck anyways). No I have no problem revealing this for all to see, because today, I own up to MY mistakes. My problem is this: my ACTUAL/original charge does NOT show up on the registry, my 2 violations ARE listed, not as violations, but as new SEX CRIMES! Lewd and lascivious, 2002 and 2003. I WILL NOT accept responsibilty for crimes I NEVER committed!! Secondly, my “victims” initials are JR, and to protect her identity, the courts named her as such, which is fair. However, because they don’t know if JR is initials or stands for “Junior”, they list the victims gender as “unknown”. I will gladly accept responsibility for what is mine. But they make it seem as though I committed 2 crimes, when it one. They make it seem as though I committed these crimes when I was 20 and 21, which makes it look less like a R&j case, and even THEY don’t know my victims gender! I need HELP!! I’m in south Florida. If anyone can point me to activist meetings/conferences, counseling/ pro-Bono attorneys, I would so greatly appreciate it. I’ve paid for my ACTUAL crime. I haven’t hurt ANYONE (besides myself) since, and yet the situation isn’t getting any better. And for anyone who thinks I’m lieing or minimizing, contact the courthouse and ask who was my victim in 2002/2003. You won’t find them because they don’t exist!!!