More handpicked essays just for you.
The problem with three strikes legislation
Critical analysis on 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.
The three-strikes law continues to arouse controversial issues in the United States. In Oklahoma, the three-strikes law is on the path of reformation. The three-strikes law states that offenders third drug-related conviction results in a life sentence (Oklahoman Editorial Board 2015). The article, “Oklahoma three-strikes law an example of why more corrections reform is needed” discusses the financial benefits and of reforming this certain law and the increase discretion given to judges (Oklahoman Editorial Board 2015). One issue of the three-strikes law is that the law puts nonviolent offenders in prison for life in a disproportionate ratio to violent offenders. For instance, out of 54 female and male inmates only three committed a violent …show more content…
The three-strikes law is defined as “judges sentence offenders with three felony convictions (in some states two or four convictions) to long prison terms, sometimes to life without parole (Cole 2014). The purpose of the three strikes law includes is incapacitation and deterrence (Cole 2014). The purpose of a sentencing and the goals of punishment ideally are meant to correspond to each other. The goals of punishment include retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restorative punishment (Cole 2014). Deterrence is broken down into either specific or general deterrence. General deterrence is defined as punishment of criminals that is intended to be an example to the general public and to discourage the commission of offenses”. Specific deterrence is defined as “punishment inflicted on criminals to discourage them from committing future crimes”. Lastly, incapacitation is defined as “depriving an offender of the ability to commit crimes against society, usually by detaining the offender in prison” (Cole 2014). Two empirical articles research the effectiveness of the three strikes law on crime trends, the impact the law has on population prisons, effect on a prisons budget, …show more content…
The purpose of the law was to protect the general public from repeat offenders and effectively “deter” criminals (Jones 2012). The three-strikes law was seen as necessary in states because of a movement referred to as the victims’ movement. The movement brought violent and sex offenders into the public’s attention. As a result, the states created the three-strikes law in order to “silence” the public (Jones 2012). However, the three strikes law doesn’t come without certain consequences, such as over-crowded prison facilities and increase in cost (Jones 2012). The three strike law purpose was to deter crime in the United States; however, research has concluded that the law has not in fact deter crime. For instance, in California the crime rate by 13.8 percent; however, the crime rate declined prior the enactment of the three-strikes law (Jones 2012). The three strikes law also did not display a significant drop in crime rates in populous cities (Jones 2012). One study researched the violent crimes in states that had similar three-strikes laws as those in California and states that did not have a three-strike law. Figure one in the research charted the crime rates in states with a three-strikes law and figure two charted the crime rates in states without a three-strikes law. The two figures verify that the three-strikes law does not contribute to the decline in crime rates because the rate for crime in the
It was intended to punish serious or violent repeat offenders so alternatives would apply to non-violent, petty offenders. The first alternative is rather simple in that the law could allow prosecutors to consider whether a defendant’s “background, character and prospects” placed him or her outside of the “spirit” of three strikes (Bazelon, 2010). This plea for leniency has been used in appeals to prevent minor offenders from life sentences. It could also be used in cases with mitigating circumstances involving the offender such as mental retardation, child abuse, or mental illness (Bazelon, 2010). Norman Williams was a homeless drug addict in 1997 when he was sentenced to life under the law after he stole a floor jack. A few years later his case was reviewed during which it was discovered that Williams grew up with a mom who was a binge drinker who pimped him and his brothers out to men that she knew. As a result of the abuse, Williams became a cocaine addict as an adult living on the streets of Long Beach, California. This information was had not been introduced at trial but after much effort he was released in 2009 (Bazelon,
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.
Today there is a growing awareness of repeat offenders among society in reference to crime. Starting around 1980 there was noticeable increase in crime rates in the U.S.. In many of these cases it was noted that these individuals were in fact repeat offenders. So, on March 7, 1994 California enacted the Three-Strikes and You’re Out Law. This laws and other laws like it are currently being utilized today all around the Untied States. This law was first backed by victim’s rights advocates in the state to target habitual offenders. The reason California holds the most importance on this law is due to the fact that it has the largest criminal justice system in America, and it has the most controversy surrounding this law in particular.(Auerhahn, p.55)
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.
Some unusual scenarios have come about due to these laws, particularly in California; some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life for such petty crimes as shoplifting golf clubs or stealing a slice of pizza from a child on the beach or a double sentence of 50 years to life for stealing nine video tapes from two different stores while child molesters, rapists and murderers serve only a few years. As a result of some of these scenarios the three strikes sentences have prompted harsh criticism not only within the United States but from outside the country as well (Campbell). Many questions have now arisen concerning the “three strikes” laws such as alternatives to incarceration for non-heinous crimes, what would happen if the state got rid of “strikes” and guaranteed that those convicted of a serious crime serve their full sentence? It is imperative to compare the benefits and the costs and the alternatives to incarceration when de...
Drug policies stemming from the War on Drugs are to blame, more specifically, the mandatory minimum sentencing mandates on petty drug charges that have imprisoned millions of non-violent offenders in the last three decades. Since this declaration of war, the percentage of drug arrests that result in prison sentences (rather than probation, dismissal, or community service) has quadrupled, resulting in an unprecedented prison-building boom (Wyler, 2014). There are three main reasons mandatory minimum sentencing laws must be reformed: (1) They impose unduly harsh punishments on relatively low level offenders, leading to the mass incarceration epidemic. (2) They have proven to be cost ineffective fiscally and in crime and drug use reduction. (3) They perpetuate a racially segregated criminal justice system that destroys communities and discourages trust
The impact of 'three strikes' laws. Christian Science Monitor, 91, 1-5.
This paper will be focusing on the courts as the specific sub-system in the criminal justice system. As said in the book the court system is responsible for charging criminal suspects, carrying out trials, and sentencing a person convicted of a crime. The fear of crime influences criminal justice policies in the court system. One way it does this is with the courts sentencing. Courts are able to give out severe punishments as a method of deterrence. This specific type of deterrence would be general deterrence. The book says that general deterrence theory should work if the punishment is clear, severe, and done swiftly. According to this theory, crime rate should drop because people will fear the punishment. The other way fear of crime influences
For years now, incarceration has been known to be the center of the nation’s Criminal Justice Center. It’s no secret that over time, the criminal justice center began experiencing problems with facilities being overcrowded, worldwide, which ended up with them having to make alternative decisions to incarceration that prevent violence and strengthen communities. These new options went in to plan to be help better develop sentencing criminal offenders.
Three Strikes and You’re Out is what you would think you would only hear watching a baseball game and not is a court room. Unfortunately people that commit crimes and get punished don’t always stop and start being human to society. So exactly what is the Three Strikes Law? The Three strikes law sets a mandatory sentencing for 25 years to life in incarceration for repeat offenders. These offenders have been convicted of two violent crimes in the past, and any crime, whether a misdemeanor or felony to be convicted under the Three Strikes Law. This sets a standard on how much the courts can take of one person who has been convicted of violent crimes and petty crimes. There are many murders that could have been prevented if this law was enforced before the law was enforced.
Mass incarceration has caused the prison’s populations to increase dramatically. The reason for this increase in population is because of the sentencing policies that put a lot of men and women in prison for an unjust amount of time. The prison population has be caused by periods of high crime rates, by the medias assembly line approach to the production of news stories that bend the truth of the crimes, and by political figures preying on citizens fear. For example, this fear can be seen in “Richard Nixon’s famous campaign call for “law and order” spoke to those fears, hostilities, and racist underpinnings” (Mauer pg. 52). This causes law enforcement to focus on crimes that involve violent crimes/offenders. Such as, gang members, drive by shootings, drug dealers, and serial killers. Instead of our law agencies focusing their attention on the fundamental causes of crime. Such as, why these crimes are committed, the family, and preventive services. These agencies choose to fight crime by establishing a “War On Drugs” and with “Get Tough” sentencing policies. These policies include “three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and juvenile waives laws which allows kids to be trialed as adults.
Today, half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent crimes. Over half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug crimes. Mass incarceration seems to be extremely expensive and a waste of money. It is believed to be a massive failure. Increased punishments and jailing have been declining in effectiveness for more than thirty years. Violent crime rates fell by more than fifty percent between 1991 and 2013, while property crime declined by forty-six percent, according to FBI statistics. Yet between 1990 and 2009, the prison population in the U.S. more than doubled, jumping from 771,243 to over 1.6 million (Nadia Prupis, 2015). While jailing may have at first had a positive result on the crime rate, it has reached a point of being less and less worth all the effort. Income growth and an aging population each had a greater effect on the decline in national crime rates than jailing. Mass incarceration and tough-on-crime policies have had huge social and money-related consequences--from its eighty billion dollars per-year price tag to its many societal costs, including an increased risk of recidivism due to barbarous conditions in prison and a lack of after-release reintegration opportunities. The government needs to rethink their strategy and their policies that are bad
To begin, Mandatory minimum sentences result in prison overcrowding, and based on several studies, it does not alleviate crime, for example crimes such as shoplifting or solicitation. These sentencing guidelines do not allow a judge to take into consideration the first time offender, differentiate the deviance level of the offender, and it does not allow for the judge to alter a punishment or judgment to each individual case. When mandatory sentencing came into effect, the drug lords they were trying to stop are not the ones being affected by the sentences. It is the nonviolent, low-level drug users who are overcrowding the prisons as a result of these sentences. Both the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have determined that mandatory sentencing is not an effective way to deter crime. Studies show that mandatory minimums have gone downhill due to racial a...
For county jails, the problem of cost and recidivism is exacerbated by budgetary constraints and various state mandates. Due to the inability of incarceration to satisfy long-term criminal justice objectives and the very high expenditures associated with the sanction, policy makers at various levels of government have sought to identify appropriate alternatives (Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p.51-66). I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to people being slamming in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related.
One of the most popular strategies imposed for habitual offenders came in the 1990s, known as three strikes laws. These laws stipulate that if an offender commits a third strike felony, they will be locked up for an extended amount of time, even including life in prison without parole. Three strikes laws are long prison sentences given to repeat offenders for serious violent crimes. Three strikes refers to the popular baseball term “three strikes and you’re out.” With three strikes legislation, offenders with two prior violent felony convictions convicted of a third felony, will receive a 25 year to life sentence. What sounds like an appealing get tough strategy, may in fact do the reverse of its intended result. The three strikes law is an attempt to reduce crime by isolating habitual criminals from a society in which they obviously cannot control themselves in. Recidivism refers to committing the same crime repeatedly, despite having been found guilty and serving the punishment. In this literature review, empirical evidence provided by respected criminal justice