Talk:Mandatory sentencing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
[edit] Order
This page seems a bit chaotic. Each paragraph seems to talk about some aspect of mandatory sentencing from some particular place and time, but they're not organized in any way, so it's very fragmented. I'm thinking of organizing sections by location (US, UK, Australia), or chronologically. I thought I'd post here first, and see if anyone has got any opinions about how this article should be arranged. If there's no feedback in a couple of days, I'll just go ahead and do something. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I think you should be bold and go ahead. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The author says "A similar 'three strikes' policy was introduced to the United Kingdom by the Conservative government in 1997". I can find no reference to support that claim. A citation must be added.
[edit] Merger proposal
- Discussion moved here from Talk:Three strikes law.
I think merging with mandatory sentencing would be a mistake. In California, for example, a judge has the power to not sentence under this scheme. Thus, it is not a mandatory sentence. Veniceslug1 03:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree; that's a good example. Plus, I think it is a distinctive enough category of punishment that it should have its own article (e.g. capital punishment). Juansmith 07:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I am opposed to the merger. I searched wikipedia for this law and would not have found it if it were merged. There is so much talk about this piece of mandatory sentencing that I think it deserves it own article. Ahimsa52 01:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ok guy, point taken so no merger. I will look at whether both articles could make it more clear that "three strikes laws" are an informal name for a subset of mandatory sentencing laws. 203.198.237.30 03:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I support a merger, or a partial merger. There's a lot of redundant information between the two. (The articles could also use some copyediting.) To User:Ahimsa52, what search terms were you using trying to find these articles? We might want to add them as redirects to make others' searching easier in the future. Ewlyahoocom 18:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I am opposed to the merger, I would not have found this article had it been seperate. "Three Strikes" is also known unto itself. 11 March 2006
Oppose - "Three strikes laws" are not necessarily manditory - or so I am led to understand by Mr Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion in Rummel v. Estelle. The exact quote was, "The prosecution chose, however, to proceed against Rummel under Texas'[s] recidivist statute." This would seem to imply that not all recidivist statutes aka "Three strikes laws" are mandatory, and thus the articles shouldn't be merged. --Tim4christ17 14:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Opposed. There is some overlap, but both subjects are broad enough to warrant seperate articles. 213.112.22.70 01:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Much Improvement Needed
This article is very unimpressive. Essentially no sources are cited and the content seems incomplete. I feel the whole thing should be rewritten by someone familiar with the subject. And appropriate citations are a must. 12 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Counterfact (talk • contribs) 14:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
