Talk:One strike, you're out

Untitled

This article is not neutral. Several words and phrases indicate bias: "Clearly, this policy would not work in any common-sensical or rational fashion." There is nothing clear about this conclusory statement, and rather strongly implies that the authors of the policy have no common-sensical [sic] or rational thought processes.

The writer then moves even further from the matter of public housing policy into their poorly informed theory of criminal law penalties. That, in itself, disqualifies this section. However, let me address the legal matters to put this to rest.

This section shows considerable ignorance of legal issues and theory. Does "redress of their previous ill-behavior" mean the payment of damages or restistution? The matter of damages or restitution is a matter - within the Common Law - of civil lawsuits, not criminal trials. The criminal side of the Common Law looks only at "ill behavior" as an offense against the state ("against the King's peace"), regardless of damages actually inflicted or whether the victim wishes prosecution. The writer does not understand the theory of criminal law.

The post degenerates into arguementation. The writer, who naively states: "...which is how criminal courts *should* work..." (emphasis added), ignores how criminal courts actually work and the purposes which criminal law exist. The writer confounds criminal and civil jurisprudence atempting (wishing?) one would act like the other, or is it vice-versa? It is unclear.

That criminal penalties have many (and perhaps conflicting?) purposes (punishment, repentance, preventative noteriety, etc.) is well understood by legal theorists - but this subtlety is completely missed by the writer and s/he camps on a theory of penalty that is actually rather minor in criminal jurisprudence: restitution.

I recommend that this article be deleted. emesselt 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No references/sources?

This article has no sources. In addition it refers to the legislation this article is about but doesn't actually name the legislation or link to it. I think this is an important article to have regarding US public housing, so it shouldn't be deleted. However I would suggest using the actual name or wording of the law and have "One strike, you're out" redirect to it. Combined with the other complaints this is one horrible article, someone more knowledgeable on the subject than I (or someone with far more free time to resarch than I) needs to just about completely re-write it.71.138.136.149 (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)