Three seems like a reasonable number. Not too high and not too low. Like a more relaxed version of "fool me once, shame on you...".
I'm surprised by your second line because it seems like you're the one philosophizing. I bet nobody has ever written down a "reason" for three strike policies for criminals/sentencing/etc. It just seems like a reasonable number, and we have the baseball metaphor to back it up.
How are we supposed to answer your question if you're not interested in philosophizing?
> Do you think recidivism should ever result in harsher punishments?
They don’t seem to work so… no?
If you are convicted of a crime the individual offense and circumstances should be considered. Adding more punishment because someone failed to be persuaded by punishment seems ineffective at rehabilitation. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.”
Maybe it makes sense to give up on a person and lock them up forever but if we are going to do that we should be honest and thoughtful about it.
“Well baseball” doesn’t seem sophisticated enough to address what should be an exceptional action in a nuanced situation.
> If so, do you think this should be codified in sentencing policy?
This is a good question. I guess my real objection to three strikes is that it seems both arbitrary (still willing to be wrong here but so far it’s just “baseball”) and mandatory. Similarly I’m also not a huge fan of minimum sentences. Let the judges… judge.
I'm surprised by your second line because it seems like you're the one philosophizing. I bet nobody has ever written down a "reason" for three strike policies for criminals/sentencing/etc. It just seems like a reasonable number, and we have the baseball metaphor to back it up.
How are we supposed to answer your question if you're not interested in philosophizing?