Quote: Original post by LessBread
O.K. Let's see.

Enhanced sentences for felony crimes involving guns are more reasonable than enhanced sentences for repeat felony crimes in general.

What arguments support the counter claim?

I don't know any studies on it, but from a logical standpoint I'd say a repeat offender is more likely to repeatedly offend than an isolated offender who offends more extremely.

So enhanced sentences are a response to repetition rather than the extremity of the crime. Anymore counter claims?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
So enhanced sentences are a response to repetition rather than the extremity of the crime. Anymore counter claims?

Could you perhaps elaborate on why this is inherently unreasonable?

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine
Getting back to the original topic, I lived in Sydney for 2 years and I never once heard anyone say "fair dinkum".

I've lived in Sydney all of my life and I rarely ever hear that one. I'd say that it could also depend on the social circles you move in.

I'm new to Queensland, mate.

I find residents of Queensland talk rather differently to Victorians, mate.

Of course, South Australians talk rather different too, man, but it's not as distinct as those in Queensland, mate.

I do know though, that if it ever becomes this consistently warm in Victoria, then I'm moving back home!

Quote: Original post by cowsarenotevil

Quote: Original post by LessBread
So enhanced sentences are a response to repetition rather than the extremity of the crime. Anymore counter claims?

Could you perhaps elaborate on why this is inherently unreasonable?

Bear in mind that the terms have been simplified. Enhanced sentence is short hand for 25 years to life. We're actually comparing two ballot propositions - "three stirkes" which passed, and "use a gun and you're done" which didn't. You can look them up if you want the details (I'm trying to keep this quick and short). My comment was that "use a gun and you're done" (where the enhanced sentence automatically attaches to any felony committed with a gun) was more reasonable than "three strikes" (where the enhanced sentence automatically attaches to any three felonies). The claim was that the comparison was a matter of opinion. I asked for examples supporting the counter opinion in order to contrast the reasonableness of either ballot proposition. All that said... Some felonies carry relatively short sentences - one year, two years, three years - with three of them leading to sentences of less than 10 years. I think it unreasonable to stretch out a person's sentence to 25 years minimum for crimes that otherwise would lead to sentences of less than 10 years. Enhanced sentences lead to very long prison terms that in turn put an undue burden on the state by increasing the prison population beyond the capacity of the prison system. In actuality, because of the three strikes law there are criminals in California serving 25 years to life for stealing pizza. I think it more reasonable to put violent criminals away for long periods of time and the use of a gun in the commission of a crime is a strong indication of a criminal's propensity for violence.

Quote: I'm new to Queensland, mate.

I find residents of Queensland talk rather differently to Victorians, mate.

yes they do, I spent ~2 years in queensland.
Accents there tend to be higher pitch, the further you get inland the higher they get.
So much so that if youre in an outback town on a friday/saturday night and you see a group of 5 shiela's that have been drinking coming in your direction.
Get out of there quick, failure to do this will result in bleeding from the eardrums