> That's much more persuasive, to a rational thinking person, than a few examples of people who fell into the edge cases of the system.

The problem is not convincing rational thinking people. Are there really some nontrivial group of informed rational people without an ownership stake in a private prison company who genuinely believe that three strikes laws are good policy?

The problem is not the rational thinking people at all. The problem is politics and rational ignorance. It's the swarms of busy people who don't have the time or the education to understand the statistics, who consequently go back and vote for the people who enacted these laws.

I get where you're coming from. The world would be a better place if all policy decisions were based on evidence and reasoning rather than emotion. But when you have the prison lobby heaping the corpses of teenage girls on their side of the scale, you need to put something visceral on the other side to shock complacent people into realizing that something is very wrong here.

Politics is a popularity contest. It's important that the side with the best argument wins, but how do you get that to happen when people have limited time and limited resources and the winner is decided by voting rather than correctness?

It's a justice system. Justice requires doing something sane with edge cases. The three strikes laws don't do that.

If the last 25 years or so have taught me anything, it's that politics is _never_ about rational, thinking people voting for their own best interest. It's pretty much just emotion and/or fear for the vast, vast majority (of the tiny minority of people who actually bother to vote).

Irrational emotion bred these laws, they will only go away via the same pathetic process. The ACLU is just playing the game with their appeal to emotion.

No, that's not inevitable. That's why judges should have discretion. They can look at the outliers and figure out the circumstances during sentencing.

>One of the most basic principles of system design is that there will be edge cases. Every engineer knows that. In a country with 300 million people, enough will fall into these edge cases for the ACLU to put together a pamphlet with a few examples. That's inevitable.

What if you are the next edge case in this system? with nobody to remember that you even exist, if its fair..

Just one person beiyng this edge case is enough to put the whole system down.. as every engineer knows this is what we call a bug, and can make the whole system irrelevant, and work agains its own purpose..

And that is what happens to the justice system.. the worst thing is that its all about property.. its f#$% stupid.. its unproportional, and minimize that is pure lack of humanity.. and its the real reason why things are still working that way.. because if you are not one of those "edge cases" you really dont care

And thats so many human lifes wasted, not only the people behind bars, but also their families, how they kids will grow up.. how can they support their families..

Go and make a rational case to voters and tell me how that works out. Rational people already know. I suspect this is to convince the irrational.

The problem with restricting judicial discretion is that a judge always has a living breathing person in front of him or her, and a sentencing committee never does. This leads to inflated sentences across the board.