His crime was stealing $14

Should be limits in place to stop this... But to not mention the 1st two strikes is erroneous. He wasn't imprisoned solely for a $14 theft.

I do think he is an example of a broken structure within our communities that left him with no hope and that has to be the strategy, not just locking folks up.

 

Don't they cut your hands off for stealing in Muslims countries?

I hope the OP's point is not to convince me that California is tough on crime.
Because I live here and that notion is laughable.

 

I believe it was a finger for the first offense, hand for the second, and head for the third. I haven’t found too much data for fourth offenses.

 

Ah the legacy of the last time America panicked about crime, we made a law to stop crime based on the rules of baseball

 

Nobody cries in jail?

 

Agree. While I support the idea of progressively harder sentences for repeat offenders, arbitrarily declaring three a magic number to throw away the keys doesn’t make any sense. There really should be some discretion and context in sentencing.

 

Oh but prosecutorial discretion is bad now and it means you love criminals, haven't you heard?

 

While I do not like the 3 strikes and your out formula I believe this story is emotional ly charged and painting a skewed picture
He didn’t only steal 14 dollars… that is what he got away with.
Mor eilporrantlu we see a vicious cycle. His mother was only 16 when she had him. He was very young when he had two children. Unstable homes lead to unstable homes. Unstable parents lead to unstable parents. Money is not the answer. It can be part of the answer but the real key is breaking this cycle… this culture. The poor Appalachian white culture sees much the same pattern.
A culture that proclaims @religion”, settles disputes with violence, glorifies violence and dominance, flaunts lawlessness.

 

The problem is in some cases sentences were too lax, resulting in serious crimes from repeat offenders, leading to a backlash and overreaction the other way.

The problem I see with the implementation of some left leaning policies, like bail reform, sentencing reform, hard drug decriminalization is often it is that it is done in a vacuum. In other countries where they have successes there are usually parallel rehabilitation strategies implemented. We just do the one thing and are confused when it fails and then throw people in prison again.

 

People that make this argument always present their own vacuums, where prison space is limitless and doesn't cost any money or create problems. That the criminal justice reform was borne out of some kind of soft hearted dogooderism rather than pragmatism about overpopulated prisons and a gigantic carceral state eating up resources that could potentially be spent on prevention in the wake of very real consequences from pursuing tough on crime policies like mandatory sentences, three strikes laws, etc.

 

I’m not totally following here but I agree with the bolder part. Prison is about the worst option, but just letting people out and doing nothing is just as bad or worse.

 

Misleading thread title.

There comes to a point where enough is enough. He didn't go to prison for stealing $14, he went to prison for multiple offenses. The $14 was just icing on the cake.

 

I think he is pointing out a flawed concept of the three strikes law. Or that’s how I read it.

 

“For the last 20 years, Coulson was serving a life sentence, with little hope of ever coming home.

His crime was stealing $14.


At the time of the 2002 offense, in which he took loose change from an unlocked garage, Coulson, then 35, was living on the streets of Long Beach and deep in the throes of drug addiction. He was also struggling with mental illnesses after surviving significant childhood abuse. Despite his documented health crises, and having no violent crimes on his record, a judge ordered him to be locked up for life, saying he could only be considered for release after 35 years.”



For arguments sake, let’s just assume you don’t give a damn about the human condition, fairness and compassion. We shall take that as a given. In spite of that, is locking up somebody like that, a non violent petty criminal, for 20 years, at a cost likely between 1 to 2 million dollars, a rational use of resources?

 

He took 14 out of someone’s house, so a burglary not a petit theft. C’mon man

 

Repeat offender = issue of moral turpitude, at the very very least.

 

The point is that a life sentence in this case was draconian in any country proclaiming itself as having been founded upon Christian principles.