I am old enough to remember the "three-strikes" era - the early 1990s - when laws putting third time felony repeat offenders in prison essentially for "life" were popular. The scare quotes around life indicate a fair few were paroled in their 60s, often in poor health.
Separating career criminals from society is the only known way to reduce crime, as most serious crime is committed by a relatively small percentage of repeat offenders who reject rehabilitation.
Roughly half the states enacted some form of this law. Later, the woke movement didn't like three strikes as it ended up imprisoning too many black criminals, without ever demonstrating those so locked up were innocent or unjustly convicted.
City Journal has a nice column which sensibly argues for locking up repeat offenders, without ever mentioning the three strikes laws. How author Jakob Dupuis manages to overlook this well-known movement to do exactly what he's advocating is puzzling. A web search reveals he was a college junior in 2021, suggesting it happened before or shortly after he was born.
Yes, three strikes was 30+ years ago but that is no excuse. If he's going to write an article about something, he should learn its history and at least mention earlier examples. Otherwise, he gives the impression he believes he invented the idea.
I'm reminded of Ben Rhodes' critique of young reporters, it applies here. Rhodes complained they know "literally nothing."
