More handpicked essays just for you.
Problems with the three strikes legislation
Problems with the three strikes law
Problems with the three strikes law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
According to Vitiello, (1997) after a threefold increase in the nations prison population between 1980 and 1994, California publicized a “three strikes” legislation. (Vitiello, 1997, pg 1). This was imposed to get tougher on violent crimes.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, (2018) many jurisdictions have a popular law called “three strikes and you’re out”. Where offenders receive harsher punishment or even life in prison on the conviction of a third felony. In 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this law in two separate cases.
According to Schmalleger and Smykla, (2015) twenty-six states has enacted the habitual offender laws that fall into the three strikes category. People that are for the three-strike law thought
One of the most controversial laws in the efforts to reduce crime has been the "three-strikes" laws that have been enacted. This law, which is already in twenty-seven states, requires that offenders convicted of three violent crimes be sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole. The law is based on the idea that the majority of felonies are committed by about 6% of hard core criminals and that crime can be eliminated by getting these criminals off the streets. Unfortunately, the law fails to take into account its own flaws and how it is implemented.
For a majority of the 20th century, sentencing policies had a minimal effect on social inequality (Western and Pettit 2002). In the early 1970s, this began to change when stricter sentencing policies were enacted (Western and Pettit 2002). Sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three-strikes laws were enacted with the purpose of achieving greater consistency, certainty, and severity in sentencing (National Research Council 2014). Numerous inequalities involving race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status have generated an unprecedented rate of incarceration in America, especially among minority populations (Western and Pettit 2010). With numerous social inequalities currently
The driving force behind "three-strikes" legislation in Washington, were politicians wanting to "get tough on crime". The reasoning behind the law was to reduce recidivism and get violent offenders off the street. I think that the legislation was merely a response to public outcry rather than a well thought out strategy to actually reduce crime. Advocates say that after "three-strikes" laws were adopted across the country there was a drastic reduction in crime in general. They also argue that once a person has committed a his second "strike" and knows that he faces a life sentence if convicted again will think twice before committing another crime. These arguments are fallacies. Finally what supporters fail to point out is that these three-strike laws target minorities over whites in a severely disproportionate amount.
Officially known as Habitual offender laws; “Three Strikes” laws have become common place in 29 states(Chern) within the United States and the Federal Court system; these laws have been designed to counter criminal recidivism by incapacitation through the prison system. The idea behind the laws were to maximize the criminal justice systems deterrent and selective incapacitation effect, under this deterrence theory individuals would be dissuaded from committing criminal activity by the threat of state imposed incarceration. Californians voted in the “three strikes” law (proposition 184) on March 7 1994 by a 72% vote with the intention of reducing crime by targeting serious repeat offenders with long term incarceration thereby eliminating the ability to commit another offense.
Samuel Walker conducted very thorough research on the propositions he presented to us in his book. His twentieth proposition read as follows; " 'Three strikes and you're out' laws are a terrible crime policy" (Walker, 1998: 140). Walker justifies his claim by asking and then explaining three questions. The first question is whether the law would actually be implemented.
The majority of prisoners incarcerated in America are non-violent offenders. This is due mainly to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which is a method of prosecution that gives offenders a set amount of prison time for a crime they commit if it falls under one of these laws, regardless of their individual case analysis. These laws began in the 1980s, when the use of illegal drugs was hitting an all time high (Conyers 379). The United States began enacting legislature that called for minimum sentencing in an effort to combat this “war on drugs.” Many of these laws give long sentences to first time offenders (Conyers). The “three strikes” law states that people convicted of drug crimes on three separate occasions can face life in prison. These laws were passed for political gain, as the American public was swept into the belief that the laws would do nothing other than help end the rampant drug crimes in the country. The laws are still in effect today, and have not succeeded to discourage people from using drugs. Almost fifty percent...
Starting in 1970s, there has been an upward adjustment to sentencing making punishment more punitive and sentencing guidelines more strict. Martinson's (1974) meta-analyzies reviewed over 200 studies and concluded that nothing works in terms of rehabilitating prisoners. Rehabilitating efforts were discontinued. The War on Drugs campaign in 1970s incarcerated thousands of non-violent drug offenders into the system. In 1865, 34.3% of prison population were imprisoned for drug violation. By 1995, the percentage grew to 59.9% (figure 4.1, 104). Legislation policies like the Third Strikes laws of 1994 have further the severity of sentencing. The shift from rehabilitation to human warehouse marks the end of an era of trying to reform individuals and the beginnings of locking inmates without preparation of their release. Along with the reform in the 1970s, prosecutors are given more discretion at the expense of judges. Prosecutors are often pressure to be tough on crime by the socie...
Because these changes in sentencing policy have created greater prison populations, laws like the Three Strike Policy have parole officers with a heavier burden. This increased work load transformed the focus of parole supervisors from rehabilitation of ex offenders, to law enforcement. (Travis 241) New modes of surveillance were introduced and by 1997, the rate of successful reentry was at a low of 44%— successful reintegration back into society was not the norm for most individuals. (Austin
... or minor vehicle offenses. This programs proved to be very effective in other countries like England due to the fact that they utilize this program more as an alternative to prison rather than just a condition. For that, it is hard to say whether it is effective in the United States in its current state. It might just be a problem of implementation.
Prosecutors are getting less and less reluctant to tag on felony charges. David Brooks is a professor Yale University and teaches criminal justice. David Brooks explains that prosecutors “have gotten a lot more aggressive in bringing felony charges,” stating that felony charges carry a longer prison sentence than misdemeanors. When a felony charge is used, the judge can give any term sentence because the “mandatory minimum” sentencing will be voided. Mandatory minimum sentences are the least amount of time that a convicted inmate must serve for his sentence. In the past, minimum sentencing laws were useful due to the fact that crime rates wer...
The roots of this law actually come from Washington State. This state was the first state to actually pass a no-nonsense three strikes policy. The first movement toward this began in the summer of 1991 as research project for the Washington Institute for Policy Studies. The main goals for the project were to examine and review the current practices of sentencing career criminals, and to make recommendations as needed. The researchers wanted anyone who as convicted of a third serious felony to be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. They wanted there to be no sympathy whatsoever for the criminals. This law was not enforced there until December 1993. (Lacourse, p.1)
Un Sac De Billes is an autobiography written by Joseph Joffo, a French writer. The story is based on the life of Joseph Joffo and his family during the early nineties. The Germans invaded Paris in 1941 and the Jews happened to be affected the most. The Germans made it mandatory for the Jews to put on an étoile jaune (yellow star) in order to be distinguished from the others. The Joffo family was in distress since they were also Jewish. Thereafter, anytime Joseph, 10 years of age and his brother Maurice, 12 years old went to school with the star on their uniforms, their classmates scoffed at them; even their teachers treated them in a prejudiced manner. Joseph’s dad, Mr. Joffo reasoned with his boys to abscond from Paris to a secure zone, Zone Libre where Henry and Albert, their older brothers resided. Joseph and Maurice affronted a lot of hardships at that vulnerable age; they fled from city to city in order to survive. After the Germans left, the brothers returned to Paris. The Joffos were reunited except their dad who lost his life in the hands of the Germans.
The rate of repeat offenders is rising and the need to suppress this rate should be attended to immediately. Statistics supports the implementation of stricter rules, as the continual rate of the repeat offenders increases.
The three strikes law was created under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, requiring a life sentence for felons convicted of a serious and violent felony, with at least two prior criminal convictions, whereas at least one of the former felonies must have also been serious or violent. A serious
All of these laws need to be modified, but no change is on the horizon. Hyper-liberal California eventually modified its three strikes law, but only after 20 years of tyranny and via referendum--a system most states don't have. Forty years of failure and the drug war continues. Nullification deals with the here and now, it doesn't wait several decades to take action. Politicians, who have every incentive to appear "tough on crime" and no incentive to free masses of offenders, some of whom will inevitably commit well publicized crimes and cost them reelection, will *never* solve the problem. The political system has failed and the citizenry needs every tool in its arsenal to protect itself from tyranny--nullification is not perfect, but given what I've demonstrated about governmental overreach I'd much prefer to be taken to court by an overzealous prosecutor in a world where nullification exists. Voters, which world would you