Comments on: New study shows 3-strikes would have little impact http://apublicdefender.com/2007/12/09/new-study-shows-3-strikes-would-have-little-impact/ Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:43:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Ember http://apublicdefender.com/2007/12/09/new-study-shows-3-strikes-would-have-little-impact/comment-page-1/#comment-9799 Ember Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:57:51 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/12/09/new-study-shows-3-strikes-would-have-little-impact/#comment-9799 Please pass this on to anyone you think can help! Monday, Dec. 17, 11:30 am – Parole Ban Protest outside main office of CT Board of Pardons & Parole - Waterbury - 55 West Main St (organized by NH Coalition to End the Parole Ban). Please pass this on to anyone you think can help!
Monday, Dec. 17, 11:30 am – Parole Ban Protest outside main office of CT Board of Pardons & Parole – Waterbury – 55 West Main St (organized by NH Coalition to End the Parole Ban).

]]> By: SPO http://apublicdefender.com/2007/12/09/new-study-shows-3-strikes-would-have-little-impact/comment-page-1/#comment-9766 SPO Mon, 10 Dec 2007 03:35:20 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/12/09/new-study-shows-3-strikes-would-have-little-impact/#comment-9766 Stephen Cox misses the point entirely. The issue is not whether we lock up all burglars for extended periods of time, but whether the state can identify a subset of burglars who pose a special threat. Clearly, people who repeatedly break into dwellings at night when people are in them are extremely dangerous criminals. First, there's always the possibility of confrontation with someone like me, who would rather die than have his children know that I wasn't brave enough to not leave them at the mercy of someone coming into our home. Second, there's the complete control aspect. Once in, and in control, the burglar can do whatever the hell he wants to the family. That is a temptation far too great. Third, at some point, people who simply break into occupied dwellings need to be permanently removed from society. Or at least removed until they are broken old men. Home invaders are dangerous criminals. If you don't think so, then let them break into your house when you're asleep. There should also be a law that allows a homeowner to shoot a home invader in his home, no matter what. Even if the home invader surrenders. Stephen Cox misses the point entirely. The issue is not whether we lock up all burglars for extended periods of time, but whether the state can identify a subset of burglars who pose a special threat. Clearly, people who repeatedly break into dwellings at night when people are in them are extremely dangerous criminals.

First, there’s always the possibility of confrontation with someone like me, who would rather die than have his children know that I wasn’t brave enough to not leave them at the mercy of someone coming into our home.

Second, there’s the complete control aspect. Once in, and in control, the burglar can do whatever the hell he wants to the family. That is a temptation far too great.

Third, at some point, people who simply break into occupied dwellings need to be permanently removed from society. Or at least removed until they are broken old men.

Home invaders are dangerous criminals. If you don’t think so, then let them break into your house when you’re asleep. There should also be a law that allows a homeowner to shoot a home invader in his home, no matter what. Even if the home invader surrenders.

]]>