From Reginald Fields in the Plain Dealer:

Columbus — The Ohio Senate began hearings this week on a bill that could permit judges to lock up repeat felons for twice as long as current law allows.

Judges could hand down maximum sentences without explanation for a second offense in any felony case. And criminals headed to prison for at least the third time could see their time doubled under a so-called “three strikes” provision.

The three-strikes provision is getting the most attention. Currently, 26 other states and the federal government have similar laws, according to the Justice Policy Institute. But few are as tough as Senate Bill 208, the Ohio proposal, which could mean double time for everyone from shoplifters to rapists.

Well, doubling sentences is not as harsh as California’s 3-strikes law which puts 3 time offenders in jail for life. The constitutionality of this issue was challenged in Ewing v. California (Ewing tried to steal golf clubs in his pants! What a moron.) but the court properly ruled that the 8th Amendment does not apply to questions of the duration of sentences.

But where are the libs on this issue? Every time a tax cut is proposed, environmental regulations are reduced, IDs are checked before voting, or sentences for crimes become harsher, the MSM is required to add the line “This proposal will negatively and disproportionally affect women, blacks, and children. In addition, studies show that more senior citizens will be forced to eat cat food… blah blah blah”

Wait for it….. wait……………. wait here it comes!……

Critics already are lining up to pan the bill, saying it is Draconian, expensive and wrongly focused on nonviolent offenders and that it could disproportionately affect blacks.

Phew! The article wouldn’t be complete without that line.

I love the logic of “critics”… For their argument to have any validity, you would have to be an insane racist and believe that blacks are incapable of preventing themselves from committing serious crimes not once, not twice, but three times in their lives. Shouldn’t leaders of the “black community” be a tad offended by such claims? But, if that isn’t what the “critics” are arguing, then are they suggesting we should have some kind of quota system?

It will be interesting to see how far this bill goes and what amendments are offered. This proposal comes with a hefty price tag, but “Draconian” proposals are usually appealing to me.