Ryan Bridge: Wouldn't we all be better off if the violent repeat offender was in jail?

A Three Strikes update for you this morning: the Government's basically lowering the threshold you have to meet in order to be hit with the new Three Strikes law.  Originally for the law to kick in, for you to get a strike, you had to commit a crime with a prison sentence of 24 months or more, and it was the same for each of the Three Strikes.  Now, it's being lowered to just 12 months for the first offence.  So basically, more criminals will be captured by the first strike.   And, if they go on to commit more serious crimes, it could mean they're locked up for good or an increase in the minimum sentence.  It's taking away the power from the judges and the discretion that they have.  They say the law doesn't work, this Three Strikes law, because we have had it before.  It's not proven to reduce offending or reoffending. It's not right. It doesn't rehabilitate criminals.  And yet somehow, I don't mind it.  If you can't sort yourself out after warnings one and two, then why would you miraculously stop offending after the third warning?  You probably wouldn't.  So, wouldn't we all be better off if that serious violent repeat offender was, rather than living next door to you, in jail? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.