Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Problems with prison overcrowding
Impact of "three strikes" legislation
Problems with prison overcrowding
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Problems with prison overcrowding
In California in 2000, Gary Ewing stole three golf clubs worth $399 each. The crime itself was not egregious; however, Ewing was on parole for a prior offense and was convicted for felony grand theft (“Ewing v. California”, n.d.). Under the three strikes law, it was discovered that he had previously been convicted for four serious or violent felonies. The court, at their discretion, had the option to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor. Instead, it sentenced Ewing to 25 years to life in prison which felt was “grossly disproportionate” under the Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The State Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling as did the United States Supreme Court who ruled that the 25 year to life sentence was …show more content…
Twenty states were inspired to adopt the law and the federal government created their own version of it. Three Strikes has been proven to lower crime rates in the states that adopted it. It also serves as a preventative measure for habitual offenders who need convincing to stay out of prison. In addition, it gives communities peace of mind to worry less about serious offenders on the streets. It has been very effective in controlling crime as police can focus more on their duties with a lesser number offenders (“Three Strikes”, 2014). But for all the good it does, the law possess serious flaws that cannot continue to be overlooked. Three Strikes has increased operational cost of courts and prisons by up to 50%. It has contributed to the overcrowding of the nation’s jails and prisons. It has deterred costs that prevent the recruitment of law enforcement officers. Lastly, many think that the law is unfair because it does not exempt “light crimes” such as shoplifting or writing bad checks. An offender who shoplifts three times qualifies for life in prison if convicted (“Three Strikes”, …show more content…
Older inmates, because of their increasing frailty, are easily victimized in the harsh prison environment. In fact, the overcrowded conditions, poor medical services, and a lack of interaction with administrative staff seemingly make them age faster (Maschi, 2012). Money saved from releasing elderly inmates under the new policy can be diverted to geriatric specific programs such as the True Grit program in Nevada (Maschi, 2012). Establish without the use of state funds, the program is the first of its kind Nevada designed to deal with the special needs of elderly inmates. The program was designed to improve physical, mental, and spiritual health through various daily activities (Harrison, 2006). Among other activities, elderly inmates are encouraged to interact with therapy dogs that are brought in monthly. They play wheelchair softball in the summer months and make latch-hook rugs to keeps their fingers nimble (Harrison, 2006). The award winning program as paid of greatly for Carson City. Infirmary visits have decreased. Psychotropic and psychoactive medication use has also decreased. Importantly, elderly inmates who must remain in prison have a reason to get up each day (Harrison,
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
In California, the most notable reasons for this law were promoted by Fresno resident, Mike Reynolds. In 1992, his daughter was attacked and murdered by two men whom were parolees. The gunman was killed in a shoot-out with police, while the other offender only received a nine year prison sentence. This outraged many, including Mr. Reynolds. He then approached two democratic assemblymen, then they drafted the first three strikes bill, which was defeated. Mr. Reynolds kept campaigning to help pass this bill. He soon got most of his backing from another case, the Polly Klaas case. In this incident a twelve-year old girl was abducted from her bedroom in San Francisco and murdered by Richard Allen Davis. Davis had a lengthy criminal history, and had been released from prison bore he committed this heinous crime. This very case became the public’s main tool in wanting to put an end to “career criminals.” So, in 1994 the bill was finally pas...
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.
In the precedent setting case Graham v. Florida the Supreme Court ruled that a sentence of life without punishment for non-homicidal juvenile offenders is a
Criminals are not only punished once for their crimes, they are punished twice, and these invisible punishments follow them throughout their lifetime. Travis explains that these punishments are a form of “social exclusion”, not purposely designed but merely due to the operation of law. Travis further explains that offenders are denied the right to vote, and even denied student loans. For example, even though a drug addict has served his sentence and rehabilitates himself, the opportunity to receive higher education to advance himself is denied. He demonstrates how the idea of denying offenders certain rights is not a new concept.
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...
The deterrent effect of three strikes law. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 68, 6-11. Tischler, E. (1999, Feburary). Three strikes striking out?
Belshaw, S. H., Caudill, J. W., Delisi, M., and Trulson, C. R. (2011). A Problem of Fit: Extreme Delinquents, Blended Sentencing, and the Determinants of Continued Adult Sanctions. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 22(3) pp. 263
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...
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
“Criminal Law and Procedure -Eighth Amendment- Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences: Graham v. Florida” (2009) Harvard Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
The procedure known as “parole” in the criminal justice system has been in practice in the United States since the late 1800’s when it was begun in a reformatory in Elmira, New York. It’s process provides for early conditional release from prison for convicted felons, after part of their prison sentence has been served, and they are found to be eligible for parole based on factors such as: conduct while incarcerated, rehabilitative efforts/progress, type of offense, and remorse for their crime. Its use has been expanded to many states, and today has become the primary way by which offenders are released from prisons and correctional institutions. Unfortunately, parole is not always rewarded to worthy inmates, thus putting society at risk for repeated crimes that often outweigh the benefits of parole, therefore, parole should be abolished and inmates should be made to complete their full sentences. Prison inmates are usually sentenced by the severity of their crimes, as well as their mental intention at the time of the act. For example: a person who commits murder intentionally expects to take the life of another in reckless disregard for human life, and knows that the act itself which he or she has decided to commit, will surely bring about death. However, in the case of manslaughter, which is also the taking of a human life, there is no actual intention to bring about death. The act that lead to someone’s death, is measured by the circumstances that made the person kill such as self-defense, or a crime of passion because the killer was provoked in such a way that a chain of events lead to violence which eventually resulted in peril. Because of the difference in how these crimes are carried out, inmates are sentenced differently; some are sentenced to life in prison, and others are sentenced to several years and will be eligible for parole after serving part of their sentence. In lieu of inmates completing their full sentences, parole tries to achieve releasing inmates early based on the idea that the inmate has been sufficiently punished, and should be given the opportunity to become a law abiding citizen, capable of functioning in our society with adequate supervision. Although parole attempts to carefully screen inmates prior to granting early release, their decisions often do not merit wise choices. As a social worker, I e...
During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes. ”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment.
Americans believe that the more serious a crime is, the longer a person should spend in a prison. In reality it means that a law at discretion can sometimes just set a number of years that a person should spend in the jail, regardless of the situation. The time in the prison is often very long (Randall, Brown, Miller& Fritzler, p.216) because some states have definite sentence or mandatory sentences which leave little room for the judge to decide on the merits of the person. For example, California favors “Three Strikes and You’re Out”(Randall & et al., p.216) stance on the laws which means after third felony crime, a person must spend 25-year-to-life sentence in the prison. They believe that the deprivations of basic needs, isolation from the society, and in extreme cases, death are consequences of committing a crime.