Kerre Woodham’s just penned an endorsement of the three strikes act.
She admits that it probably won’t do what it sets out to do. She accepts that it might be unjust. She understands that it will be expensive. Nevertheless she supports it. Why?
After years of doing talkback, I get the sense that a lot of people have had a gutsful of violent crims. There’s a sense that the courts are treating offenders lightly and criminals are roaming the streets, in an anarchic fashion, without fear of consequences.
Law-abiding members of the community have felt frustrated and powerless for some time but with the passing of the bill, there’s a feeling that the something in the phrase “something needs to be done” is actually happening.
Kerre, are you really suggesting that it’s the bigoted sewer of talkback radio that should now serve as the incubator of justice policy? Really?
This is an unjust law that wastes money and doesn’t fix the problem. You’ve said as much. It’s justice quackery. It diverts us from the real issues and provides an excuse for avoiding the hard work required to produce genuinely effective justice policy and winning the debate about the kind of safe, supportive, just society that will be better for all of us.
We’re all familiar with the frustrations and anger of the community over crime – but the answer isn’t to endorse a lynch mob.
As Atticus Finch put it, “The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience”.
I don’t care what talkback radio says. We can, and should, do better.