The Election Thread To Talk About The Election

[JennyB]

I'm very anti-death penalty, and I'm SUPER anti-three-strikes.

Same.

[Dr. Medulla]

I'm very anti-death penalty, and I'm SUPER anti-three-strikes.

Same.

Thritto.*

* The only time I would support the death penalty would be for government officials who commit high crimes against the people.

[Dr. Medulla]

Lindsey Graham: "If I hear anybody say it [i.e., losing the election] was because Romney wasn't conservative enough I'm going to go nuts. We're not losing 95% of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we're not being hard-ass enough."

[Heston]

I'm SUPER anti-three-strikes.

Even for serious violent crime?

[Rat Patrol]

Lindsey Graham: "If I hear anybody say it [i.e., losing the election] was because Romney wasn't conservative enough I'm going to go nuts. We're not losing 95% of African-Americans and two-thirds of Hispanics and voters under 30 because we're not being hard-ass enough."

Anything less than 100% is failure, you closet-cased traitor!

[Chuck Mangione]

I'm SUPER anti-three-strikes.

Even for serious violent crime?

That's where torture should come in.

[Flex]

From a pure stats junkie perspective, I've been loving the anti-Nate Silver backlash this election cycle and all the insane commentary that's been generated.

[Dr. Medulla]

I'm SUPER anti-three-strikes.

Even for serious violent crime?

One would think conviction for committing a violent crime would be on its own merits, not that it was the person's third strike.

[Heston]

I'm SUPER anti-three-strikes.

Even for serious violent crime?

One would think conviction for committing a violent crime would be on its own merits, not that it was the person's third strike.

So past offences shouldn't be taken into consideration at all?

[Dr. Medulla]

From a pure stats junkie perspective, I've been loving the anti-Nate Silver backlash this election cycle and all the insane commentary that's been generated.

Coincidentally, mental_floss mentioned him today in a story about non-voters. Angry conservatives claim he's in the pocket of the lib'ruls, but Silver said that if he did vote it would be a choice between Mittens and Gary Johnson.
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/150042

[Dr. Medulla]

I'm SUPER anti-three-strikes.

Even for serious violent crime?

One would think conviction for committing a violent crime would be on its own merits, not that it was the person's third strike.

So past offences shouldn't be taken into consideration at all?

The inanity of the three-strikes law is that it doesn't really take past offences into consideration—not in any meaningful way. All felonies are treated the same. Convictions for stealing beer shouldn't weigh the same as rape. The three-strikes law doesn't take that into account. Nor does it consider whether a person has otherwise led a good life. If there are forty years of model behaviour between those non-violent acts, it doesn't matter: three strikes is three strikes. It's the mindlessness of it all that is what's so offensive.

[Heston]

I'm SUPER anti-three-strikes.

Even for serious violent crime?

One would think conviction for committing a violent crime would be on its own merits, not that it was the person's third strike.

So past offences shouldn't be taken into consideration at all?

The inanity of the three-strikes law is that it doesn't really take past offences into consideration—not in any meaningful way. All felonies are treated the same. Convictions for stealing beer shouldn't weigh the same as rape. The three-strikes law doesn't take that into account. Nor does it consider whether a person has otherwise led a good life. If there are forty years of model behaviour between those non-violent acts, it doesn't matter: three strikes is three strikes. It's the mindlessness of it all that is what's so offensive.

Well I don't know that much about it, coming from a civilized country, but I would have thought 3 serious violent crimes would merit the key being thrown away. Not for petty offences, though.

[Dr. Medulla]

Even for serious violent crime?

One would think conviction for committing a violent crime would be on its own merits, not that it was the person's third strike.

So past offences shouldn't be taken into consideration at all?

The inanity of the three-strikes law is that it doesn't really take past offences into consideration—not in any meaningful way. All felonies are treated the same. Convictions for stealing beer shouldn't weigh the same as rape. The three-strikes law doesn't take that into account. Nor does it consider whether a person has otherwise led a good life. If there are forty years of model behaviour between those non-violent acts, it doesn't matter: three strikes is three strikes. It's the mindlessness of it all that is what's so offensive.

Well I don't know that much about it, coming from a civilized country, but I would have thought 3 serious violent crimes would merit the key being thrown away. Not for petty offences, though.

But that's the problem: the law takes all that context out of the hands of judges and juries. As has been observed about zero-tolerance rules, it's an excuse not to think, just obey.

[Flex]

Coincidentally, mental_floss mentioned him today in a story about non-voters. Angry conservatives claim he's in the pocket of the lib'ruls, but Silver said that if he did vote it would be a choice between Mittens and Gary Johnson.
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/150042

That's interesting since he came out of Daily Kos. The whole article is interesting, actually.

[Heston]

One would think conviction for committing a violent crime would be on its own merits, not that it was the person's third strike.

So past offences shouldn't be taken into consideration at all?

The inanity of the three-strikes law is that it doesn't really take past offences into consideration—not in any meaningful way. All felonies are treated the same. Convictions for stealing beer shouldn't weigh the same as rape. The three-strikes law doesn't take that into account. Nor does it consider whether a person has otherwise led a good life. If there are forty years of model behaviour between those non-violent acts, it doesn't matter: three strikes is three strikes. It's the mindlessness of it all that is what's so offensive.

Well I don't know that much about it, coming from a civilized country, but I would have thought 3 serious violent crimes would merit the key being thrown away. Not for petty offences, though.

But that's the problem: the law takes all that context out of the hands of judges and juries. As has been observed about zero-tolerance rules, it's an excuse not to think, just obey.

That's why I said for "serious violent crime" in my original post. Obviously life for stealing a cabbage 3 times is ridiculous.