Los estudiantes de Stanford ayudan a cambiar la ley de tres huelgas
Proyecto Tres Strikes de
Stanford Law School, el único programa de este tipo en el país, ayudó a cambiar la ley de California sobre los reincidentes y ahora es trabajar … Video Rating: 4/5
When ex-cons try to find work, they are usually turned down. A felony will follow you for life. Employers believe they’re so far beyond reproach they can pass judgement on applicants who want to pull their lives back together again. The State complains about recidivism but the law allows discrimination and punishment forever for crimes committed years and years ago. God bless the ex-con who’s really trying.
The “Possibility of thoughtful change” is imperitive in our law system. Life terms for this type of criminal offense is inexcusable. Find better ways for rehabilitation, better forms of consequences for non violent repeat offenders than life imprisonment. Create better forms of learning utilize that incredible brain for something productive.
I agree… We can’t afford apologists for people repeatedly doing the wrong thing. Likewise, I agree with what you say about the prison system. Even worse, is ours the only nation that has “for profit” prison systems?
I lol and agree. The prison/legal system definitely needs rehabilitation itself. I have the impression that the prison system is training camp for criminals to get better at crime rather than rehabilitate. I don’t even have a problem with Standford trying to help SOME of the offenders. What rubbed me the wrong way is how the woman from the video thinks that the small amount of meth was no big deal. If it is illegal, people try not to get caught and bad things happen regardless of the amount.
I honestly do not know how successful it has/hasn’t been. But I do believe that doing the same thing and expecting someone to react differently would be too optimistic. I think the “ultimate” sentencing would work, but there is obviously a threshold before this point.I know the video is only a clip, but only meth, pot or cocaine 3 times means the offender isn’t convinced to stop. Life absolutely not, but a much greater penalty is certainly warranted. Maybe life with parole opportunities?
:^) I’m glad you understood my analogy. All in all, I agree in principle with what you say. In truth, I’m of the mind that when a person knowingly breaks the laws of society, they prove themselves to be anti-social and should be treated as such. More importantly, until the prison/legal system gets into the business of real rehabilitation, our system as it is will always fail “the people”. I just think this program adds a little sensibility to the system without [trying to] destroying it.
For all those who think that once a criminal always a criminal. I sure hope that one day you don’t get drunk and do something stupid, one day you might need someone to understand that you aren’t that way “normally”,
It is a pity that you think that people are automatically going to go and rape or molest children. I can’t imagine what you think when you walk down a busy street.
Yes they are bragging about getting someone off from a life sentence for something that would normally be a misdemeanor. Those who as you say “rob and rape” are not the ones that these students are going to be fighting for.
The three strikes law has been in affect for some time. So far, in your opinion, do you think that it has worked? If yes, then you are sadly misinformed. If no, then I have to ask, what do you think would convince a criminal to stop.
This video is not talking about a serious felony being let off, he is talking about possession of meth, pot, or cocaine. Something that normally would only give you county time, which is under a year. They need to figure out someway of giving the time for crime.
While I don’t quite think that’s how this law works, (since jaywalking would be on the level of a speeding ticket) I understand the concept of what you are saying. And I agree that a person should not be punished again for past crimes. BUT, if (a big IF) the justice system is to dissuade crime and criminals, then the stakes have to be raised for repeat offenders. What level of punishment will stop their criminal habits? How many chances should they get while innocents are at risk?
There’s nothing wrong with being punished for breaking the law. If I understand correctly, this program just says that the law should punish the crime in question, and not let past infractions influence sentencing in a way that makes the punishment disproportionate to the crime in question. Should a person spend life in prison for jaywalking, just because they were previously tried and sentenced for aggravated assault?
Laws don’t prevent crimes… Laws, at best, serve as a deterrent to crime and more specifically as a guideline for the natural consequence of what happens when someone breaks the rules of a society. In essence, I’m agreeing with what you wrote after your first sentence.
If you like Three Strikes that much, the state of CA should house these felons inside your gated community and require it to levy the taxes to pay for the whole thing. You dumb, ignorant piece of wingnut trash.
I hope you enjoy living in poverty in the high-crime world you advocate. We knew three-strikes laws wouldn’t work before they were implemented. We knew it because fourth offender laws (which did precisely the same thing on a fourth felony conviction) didn’t work.
I agree with you but understand that the US has a “Legal System”, not a “Justice System”, there is a big difference. In the legal system, truth & justice are irrelevant, it is about following or enforcing the “law” no matter how good or bad, fair or unjust, etc. the law is written. It is a play of lawyers, word meaning, sentence twists, rhetoric. Remember these famous words: “…I’m gonna say this again, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms …” It is sad but that is the way it is
What a disgrace — standing up for criminals. Stanford is proud of corrupting its students and brags about it. Is political advocacy for criminals part of Stanford’s academic mission? And parading some moron around squeeling like a little girl about how she helped a repeat convicted felon “get off” –maybe his fourth conviction will be for mudering and raping a young child. Will you video the follow up on that?
When I was a kid, if a did something that I knew was wrong, I got a whooping. I never did it again (whatever it was). Let’s say I decided to make the same mistake twice, oh I knew I really deserved what was coming. I am not a lawyer or anything close, but if you commit a crime three times (and get caught), you know you are in trouble. It is not like the sentencing is a surprise. It is pretty simple, 3 strikes and…
Tax supported Stanford University gets repeat felons out of jail and back to your community to commit more felonies. Hear them brag about it here.
When ex-cons try to find work, they are usually turned down. A felony will follow you for life. Employers believe they’re so far beyond reproach they can pass judgement on applicants who want to pull their lives back together again. The State complains about recidivism but the law allows discrimination and punishment forever for crimes committed years and years ago. God bless the ex-con who’s really trying.
The “Possibility of thoughtful change” is imperitive in our law system. Life terms for this type of criminal offense is inexcusable. Find better ways for rehabilitation, better forms of consequences for non violent repeat offenders than life imprisonment. Create better forms of learning utilize that incredible brain for something productive.
I agree… We can’t afford apologists for people repeatedly doing the wrong thing. Likewise, I agree with what you say about the prison system. Even worse, is ours the only nation that has “for profit” prison systems?
{ smdh }
I lol and agree. The prison/legal system definitely needs rehabilitation itself. I have the impression that the prison system is training camp for criminals to get better at crime rather than rehabilitate. I don’t even have a problem with Standford trying to help SOME of the offenders. What rubbed me the wrong way is how the woman from the video thinks that the small amount of meth was no big deal. If it is illegal, people try not to get caught and bad things happen regardless of the amount.
I honestly do not know how successful it has/hasn’t been. But I do believe that doing the same thing and expecting someone to react differently would be too optimistic. I think the “ultimate” sentencing would work, but there is obviously a threshold before this point.I know the video is only a clip, but only meth, pot or cocaine 3 times means the offender isn’t convinced to stop. Life absolutely not, but a much greater penalty is certainly warranted. Maybe life with parole opportunities?
“one day” does not explain three strikes. Note carefully that 3 is not the same as 1.
:^) I’m glad you understood my analogy. All in all, I agree in principle with what you say. In truth, I’m of the mind that when a person knowingly breaks the laws of society, they prove themselves to be anti-social and should be treated as such. More importantly, until the prison/legal system gets into the business of real rehabilitation, our system as it is will always fail “the people”. I just think this program adds a little sensibility to the system without [trying to] destroying it.
For all those who think that once a criminal always a criminal. I sure hope that one day you don’t get drunk and do something stupid, one day you might need someone to understand that you aren’t that way “normally”,
It is a pity that you think that people are automatically going to go and rape or molest children. I can’t imagine what you think when you walk down a busy street.
Yes they are bragging about getting someone off from a life sentence for something that would normally be a misdemeanor. Those who as you say “rob and rape” are not the ones that these students are going to be fighting for.
The three strikes law has been in affect for some time. So far, in your opinion, do you think that it has worked? If yes, then you are sadly misinformed. If no, then I have to ask, what do you think would convince a criminal to stop.
This video is not talking about a serious felony being let off, he is talking about possession of meth, pot, or cocaine. Something that normally would only give you county time, which is under a year. They need to figure out someway of giving the time for crime.
While I don’t quite think that’s how this law works, (since jaywalking would be on the level of a speeding ticket) I understand the concept of what you are saying. And I agree that a person should not be punished again for past crimes. BUT, if (a big IF) the justice system is to dissuade crime and criminals, then the stakes have to be raised for repeat offenders. What level of punishment will stop their criminal habits? How many chances should they get while innocents are at risk?
There’s nothing wrong with being punished for breaking the law. If I understand correctly, this program just says that the law should punish the crime in question, and not let past infractions influence sentencing in a way that makes the punishment disproportionate to the crime in question. Should a person spend life in prison for jaywalking, just because they were previously tried and sentenced for aggravated assault?
Laws don’t prevent crimes… Laws, at best, serve as a deterrent to crime and more specifically as a guideline for the natural consequence of what happens when someone breaks the rules of a society. In essence, I’m agreeing with what you wrote after your first sentence.
If you like Three Strikes that much, the state of CA should house these felons inside your gated community and require it to levy the taxes to pay for the whole thing. You dumb, ignorant piece of wingnut trash.
I hope you enjoy living in poverty in the high-crime world you advocate. We knew three-strikes laws wouldn’t work before they were implemented. We knew it because fourth offender laws (which did precisely the same thing on a fourth felony conviction) didn’t work.
Stanford University… formerly into science, now into bragging about helping felons “get off” and back into your neighborhoods to rob and rape!
I agree with you but understand that the US has a “Legal System”, not a “Justice System”, there is a big difference. In the legal system, truth & justice are irrelevant, it is about following or enforcing the “law” no matter how good or bad, fair or unjust, etc. the law is written. It is a play of lawyers, word meaning, sentence twists, rhetoric. Remember these famous words: “…I’m gonna say this again, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms …” It is sad but that is the way it is
umnmmm….thanks?
What a disgrace — standing up for criminals. Stanford is proud of corrupting its students and brags about it. Is political advocacy for criminals part of Stanford’s academic mission? And parading some moron around squeeling like a little girl about how she helped a repeat convicted felon “get off” –maybe his fourth conviction will be for mudering and raping a young child. Will you video the follow up on that?
@ 1:16. What does she think he did with the rest of the meth?
When I was a kid, if a did something that I knew was wrong, I got a whooping. I never did it again (whatever it was). Let’s say I decided to make the same mistake twice, oh I knew I really deserved what was coming. I am not a lawyer or anything close, but if you commit a crime three times (and get caught), you know you are in trouble. It is not like the sentencing is a surprise. It is pretty simple, 3 strikes and…
Fuck Stanford the three strike law I love that law its good
Where are the 3 strike laws for the guys on wall street. They almost collapsed the world economy.
ขอบคุณค๊าบบผม
เอาใจพี่ไปเลยน้อง ฮ่าๆๆ สุดยอดดดด