ikiddikidd

I wonder if that wouldn’t make her less effective than in her current role? My sense is that these activities and activists are contributing to the solutions and dismantling the status quo in ways that our elected officials have been unable to do because of the general ignorance and political entrenchment of the majority of voters. The exception might be were she to be elected as a judge.

I know I’ve missed my window on our OP, but can someone help me understand the desire to repeal 3 strikes rules? I absolutely believe in repealing mandatory minimums and treating drug use as addiction rather than crime. But 3 strikes rules, especially if they have to do with violent crimes, seem more of a measure of separating a consistently violent person from potential victims. Now, I also believe that prisons should be accommodating, comfortable, safe living places (as far as is humanly possible), rather than harsh places where inmates are treated subhumanly or unkindly. But the single compelling apologetic for prisons is that some people seem to exhibit an inability to not harm others outside of constant supervision. And a three strikes law seems like a tool to help us identify them and protect them and others from their modus operandi.

Is it possible that the problem with 3 strikes laws is that they are not strictly applied to violent crimes?

Perhaps. I am trying to curb my cynicism, but I simply see our political systems all too often reward ineffective grandstanding and capitulating to the masses and the money or, conversely, sidelining, ostracizing, and shouting over those pursuing true justice and reformation. In her current role, she doesn’t rely heavily on winning a popularity contest judged by the fickle or clueless. I think she might be better served by gaining more notoriety and, consequentially, financial support as she attacks the broken system from the outside of it. But, I’ll endorse her on whatever path is most effective.

It seems that the predominant philosophy in translation work is to attempt to convey the original intent of the author. Thus, often we expect to lose subtleties or flourishes in any translated work. But do you attempt or find the other way round to be true? Do you ever find you gain nuance, artistry, or even clarity in the translated text which improves upon the original?

That makes sense. I’m not certain I entirely concede your final point though. Surely we have evidence that federal laws and judicial precedents effectively override the poor or corrupt judgments of local judges sometimes? I don’t necessarily believe that any significant number of judges currently err on the side of mercy, but I could see 3 strikes laws being a hedge against corruption or negligence from time-to-time. Still, I don’t see them being relevant for non-violent crimes, and—more importantly—if they are primarily being used to justify punitive or lucrative life sentences then we are better off without them.