If you look at California, and I picked one state for simplicity, it really did help crime rates. I have inserted a chart of crime rates, and the vertical line represents the enactment of the 3 strike rule. Though it works in California, where violent and dangerous felonies are committed at a much higher rate, I'm not convinced that this wouldn't help here in Iowa as well. Many of the arguments against this are the example of someone bouncing three checks and spending life in prison. If the law is structured like California, that would not be the case. A retrospective study of the law showed that there are only certain felonies that count as strikes. In addition, strikes could be obtained through convictions in other states, if that strike would qualify within the State of California. My support of a law like this is dependent of a similar structure.
Another argument is a constitutional one. On March 5. 2003 the law was upheld by the supreme court in Ewing v. California, and also denied a writ of habeas corpus that same year. It upheld that this is not cruel and unusual punishment, and I tend to agree.
Finally, the decrease in crime has caused a decrease in prison population. The perceived overcrowding issue that seemed to be an argument to not pass the law, never happened. The estimate of dollars saved due to the decreased crime rate was roughly 28.5 billion in the ten years following the enactment of the law.
Now to my own dissent. The idea of banishing someone from the state is absolutely ludicrous. It to me seems like a second chance to get it right. A criminal can simply take the deal, live in Rock Island, and continue to commit crime in Davenport until they are caught. Where this idea came from, I don’t know, but I’m sure that our neighboring states certainly won’t appreciate it, and I’m sure Iowa is not the place we want as the ‘Australia of the US.’
Finally, the decrease in crime has caused a decrease in prison population. The perceived overcrowding issue that seemed to be an argument to not pass the law, never happened. The estimate of dollars saved due to the decreased crime rate was roughly 28.5 billion in the ten years following the enactment of the law.
Now to my own dissent. The idea of banishing someone from the state is absolutely ludicrous. It to me seems like a second chance to get it right. A criminal can simply take the deal, live in Rock Island, and continue to commit crime in Davenport until they are caught. Where this idea came from, I don’t know, but I’m sure that our neighboring states certainly won’t appreciate it, and I’m sure Iowa is not the place we want as the ‘Australia of the US.’
Links:
11 comments:
GP - I appreciate you showing what has worked for other states. No one said that this would be an easy under taking for Davenport, but something must be done with crime. An idea is a starting place, and hopefully with the new police chief he will be able to bring good workable suggestion to Davenport. Many people were against the Guardian Angles and look what they have accomplished, but they can not nor should fight crime alone. For the past four years Davenport crime has spiral out of control with no help to resolve this issue from the city administration and their staff. The three strike plan may not be the answer for Davenport, but it is a start. I am sure that these three alderman, and the newly elected ones would welcome any ideas to be looked at.
Wow, someone making an argument with actual data! It is so rare these days. Nice work.
It appears that California may be onto something. My only qualm with taking a harder line on punishment is a reactive way to fight crime. I'm more interested in proactive ways to reduce crime, such as the Guardian Angels, and the "Broken Windows" theory of crime prevention, to name a couple.
Also, our country could do more to help these poor neighborhoods. No, I'm not saying there is any substitute for a strong family and a strong household, but we sure aren't making things any easier for them. The good parents have to work multiple jobs, may or may not have health care, and pray their kids get scholarships because that is their only hope to go to college.
First, it is not sufficiently scientific to correlate the "three strikes" rule with the reduction in crime given the significant improvement of the economy in CA during that same time period. Many other states without the three strike rule saw similar declines in crime, including Iowa.
Second, crime has declined the last two years in Davenport, not "spiraled out of control".
Helping kids get a good education and providing afterschool programs will be more effective and cheaper than building and filling prisons.
A SOLO Resident
SOLO resident you are right on in your suggestion that education and prevention are much cheaper than prisons.
We need to be very stratigic in addressing the problem of the reasons chidren turn to crime.
We can't overlook the fact that families are working multiple low paying jobs just to keep their heads above water, and their children are unsupervised.
We need to find a way for more after school programs that are neighborhood centered that kids can walk to.
Many central city children don't have transportation to the YMCA, or other after school programs.
The approach must be two fold. One provide the opportunities that you are saying, but then you must have an accountability aspect too. The parents are the problems, not lying blame really. Just saying: Have any of you met some of the central city parents? Not all, but some are absolutely vile parents. No care other then crack and welfare, they will not change, so we have to go to change the attitudes of their children. We lack role models in the families. And yes, they are coming from Chicago. If we want to make any headway in our problems, we have to stop the flow of welfare folks from Chicago to Davenport or we will never dig out.
Some people like shelly just want to tax on another layer of social agency costs. she doesn't have a clue as to how we got the problems, only how she can pocket some cash for herself and her friends in another go around and aleviate some of her guilt. She should move into the real inner city neighorhood and deal with real solo problems twenty hours a day instead of eight, and quit lecturing us from her quaint riverfont bungalow.
If only we would just ask the homeowners who live SOLO what the problems are and how to address them. But, instead we build more lowincome housing and give more freebees out to the welfare junkies who love to come to Davenport.
Who is Shelly? I don't see a post by that name. I agree with the person who said the plan needs to be two fold. There are alot of parents out there who just plain aren't parenting. The unfortunate part of that is that their children don't have a role model. We need to find a way to stop the next generation from becoming the same as their parents.
However, there are also parents who are doing everything they can to raise their children in a productive way, only to have other influences put their kids on the wrong path.
Is this blog dead?
I've been wondering that too.
Now that Meyer isn't posting Malin isn't either. This blog was all about the Thrid Ward Alderman. Happy bull weivell and good rioddance craig.
Post a Comment