Is the three strikes law a good idea?

Round 1
alicattt: "it destroys the flexibility of the judges. the reason we have judges, juries, and lawyers is so that they can give a reasonable and fair punishment. if we have the three strikes law we will have a "one size fits all" type of punishment which takes away the flexibility of judges, juries and lawyers"

magpie: "Jack (ficticious person) has committed two violent felonies. He is well aware that a conviction on another crime will mean twenty five years in prison. He goes ahead and commits another crime, anyway. (In actual fact most criminals commit many more crimes than they are ever indicted for, let alone convicted of.) So our friend, Jack must be a habitual and very dangerous individual in light of his complete disregard for consequences. If he is allowed to reenter society after some short sentence, it is statistically unlikely that the judge or jury members or their families will fall victim to Jack. But someone will. If you don't care that it might be you, so be it. But don't ask me or my loved ones to suffer for your misplaced pity. There are people in this world that don't deserve to be among the rest of us. Jack is one of them. Save your sympathy for his victims."

Round 2
alicattt: alicattt forfeited this round.

magpie: "One frequent argument against Three Strikes law is that a person convicted of a minor crime - i.e. stealing a bicycle - can receive a long sentence, perhaps 25 years. But one must consider the primary intent of this law: that habitual criminals with - in the case of California - two convictions for violent felonies, having committed another crime, are likely to continue to run afoul of the law. Remember, these criminals know that another conviction will result in a lengthy confinement. They could give up their lives of crime, or they could move to another state, presumably one without Three Strikes. They have done neither. Another, voiced by my opponent is that it takes away the value of lawyers, juries and judges. Well that is a bogus argument. The lawyers have done their part before the juries deliberate. The jury has convicted. The judge is deprived of his/her power to supersede the will of the people. Boo hoo! A third argument is the cost of incarceration. Try comparing to the cost of crime."

Round 3
alicattt: "it destroys the flexibilty of the judges. the reason we have judges and lawyers is so that they can decide a fair punishment. not all crimes deserve the same punishment. and you cant argue against that."

magpie: "Alicat keeps insisting that judges and lawyers must do their jobs. It's getting old. Stating and restating a tired old mantra is not debate. Let me offer an analogy: If you have a TV that fails over and over,again. How many times must you pay the repair man before you decide to just throw it away? I'm not suggesting that we throw these criminals away - just put them away. If they are incapable of joining civilized society then it is our job to put them away. We the people decide what laws should be. The judges ae charged with excuting the law according to our specifications. Alicat, if you have something to say, please say it."