Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Life without parole is draconian. Three strikes and a life sentence is draconian. Giving someone a permanent criminal record, checkable by employers, is, I think, almost always draconian. Imposing a fine so high as to take a big chunk of your kids' college fund is draconian. But losing your internet access is the opposite of draconian. And it is more fair than fines and civil judgments, because the sting of the punishment is less greatly mitigated by wealth.
At some point, we're going to have to reconcile internet access not being a right on a par with free speech, voting, and due process, with the increasing trend towards government services being available only
online. If you, say, get a parcking ticket, and can only
pay it online, but have no internet access, you have a serious problem (and society does, too).
Note that a) that article is nearly ten years old, b) the third strike must, indeed, be a felony, and c) a good deal of what the (members of) the press (who oppose three strikes) call "shoplifting is often charged as felony robbery or commercial burglary (There's a big difference between stuffing a cookie in your pocket while no one is looking and doing the exact same thing while an employee is watching.)
Doesn't make the early overextension of California's three strikes law right, but it makes it more complicated to judge.
Also note that most Californians have no problem at all with locking someone away forever when they have a history of multiple felonies, at least two of which are violent by definition, when they commit a third.