1. I cannot think of a situation where someone is punished based on a presumption of future crimes (except for 3 strikes rule, see below)-- if you could site such a circumstance, I'll concede the point.
2.Insurance premiums are not "punishment" in the legal sense we are using here- its a matter of demographics. We may not think they are "fair" ( I know I didn't when I was a young, unmarried male <G>),but they are not a matter of law.
3.As for the 3 strikes argument, that is only invoked _after_ the 3rd felony has been committed. The perpetrator _knew_ that potential penalty was out there, and would be used before he chose to commit that 3rd offense. There is no presumption he would commit the 3rd offense, just the promise of the punishment that would be applied. |
