I'm on question number 66 of my prop research homework. So now I'm ready to address this 3-strikes measure...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PandaMoOo I like how this prop tries to protect the children and sexual predators. I know rape and incest destroys peoples lives, but it's an emotional appeal and not a logical one. Sex offerenders on average get longer sentences then second degree murders, talk about destroying someone's life. |
I gave this some thought and found myself disagreeing. Given a choice to be in the same room with a convicted (non-serial) murderer and a sex offender, I would pick the murderer. I'm making a distinction here between serial killers, who are some of the sickest people on earth, and one-time murderers. It's my opinion that most non-serial murderers killed in the heat of argument or even defense. A lot of these people regret what they did and probably wouldn't do it again. Sex offenders on the other hand are mentally ill. They see sex with children or forced sex with anyone as acceptable behavior. I'm afraid of these people and don't want them anywhere near me or my family. I would welcome a longer sentence for these people.
I'm still undecided about this prop though. Some people deserve a second chance, but at the same time there are people who would qualify for this second chance who do not deserve it. Given this indecision I tried to decide based on which was more expensive. On one hand you have the need for more prisons to retain the criminals held by the stricter 3-strikes law. On the other hand you have the need to resentence all the criminals to adjust for the ammended 3-strikes law. Are there any points I am missing that might help me decide?