Lockup push wasteful, unfair
The problem with enforcing “three strikes” (Letters, Aug. 9) is that, in retrospect, we see that it is netting those who are snatching purses or committing less serious crimes that do not need to be incarcerated forever at the cost of more than $32,000 annually each.
The author states that released offenders do not return rehabilitated but return to a life of crime. Why? Could it be because there are no programs for job training or other education in our facilities except perhaps the honing of better crime skills? Could it be that the stigma of “ex-convict” leaves some of them homeless, jobless and without any resources whatsoever?
“Three strikes” is no deterrent to crime. Horrific crime is punished by lengthy sentences without any three-strikes, and lengthy sentences for lower-level crimes are a waste of life and a waste of money. The case in point cited (“an offender who knows how to work the system”) is an example of all the more reason that individual cases should be judged on their merit rather than on a “one-size-fits-all” basis.