Criminologist suggests that many factors affect the rates of crimes. Such factors include, economic growth has been shown to reduce both the violent and property crime rates (Geis, 2012). Also the deterrence theory, states that people are less likely to committing a crime if the punishment is swift, certain and severe (Parker & Stansfield, 2015) Parker & Stansfield (2015), made a point to state that punishment must be severe enough to overcome the gain of the crime, but not too severe that it become is unjust. Further suggesting that likelihood of being caught deter and reduce crimes than the possibility of punishment.
Since The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (The Act of 1994), the reduced discretion of state judicial officers has increased the amount of criminals serving at least 85 percent of their sentence. Along with a mandatory life sentence for those convicted of three serious violent crimes or drug offenses (Parker, & Stansfield, 2015). Although statistics suggest that crime has reduced by the introduction of the Act of 1994, many criminologists have stated that the three strikes had very little to do with the decrease in crime (Geis, 2012). Also, it has been shown that offenders facing their third
…show more content…
Since a heavier burden is placed on agencies concerning violent crimes. Along with more funding, allotment of additional police officers and resources are put in that area. In conjunction with increased employment rates, and healthier children, due to lead-based paint regulations, along with higher abortion rates (Parker, & Stansfield, 2015). Lastly, studies have concluded that prisons have not proven to reduce crime rates either incarnation offenders or by discouraging people within the community from commenting crimes. Also, longer sentences have not be shown to deter, or reform any more than a shorter sentence(Geis,
Increased tensions during the 1960s in the context of the Civil Rights Movement started to cause an increase in crime, sparking a newfound belief in incarcerating the masses to prevent more crime from occurring. During the 1970s, the likelihood of being incarcerated increased for nearly every citizen, especially low-level offenders. Clear and Frost thoroughly explain that the Punishment Imperative in the 1980s was caused by changes in government “policies and practices associated with the increasingly ubiquitous War on Drugs” (31). Changes in sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum sentences, and three strikes legislation were though to be initially helpful in decreasing the rate of incarceration, but they proved to do the exact opposite. Policies also regarding reentry into society, access to education, public housing, and child custody for ex-convicts continued to play a major role in the increase in incarceration because newly released convicts had an extremely difficult time reintegrating into society. Clear and Frost continue to argue their point as they reach incapacitation in the 1990s, where they discuss how the government focused generally on increasing the lengths of stay within prisons instead of increasing the amount of people being incarcerated. Clear and Frost use quantitative data to explain the government policy called
Kimber Reynolds was eighteen at the time and came home to Fresno to be a bridesmaid. She was leaving a restaurant when two men on motorcycles attempted to snatch her purse (Laird, 2013). She resisted and one of the men shot her resulting in her death twenty six hours later. Her family discovered that both men had prior offenses mostly for drugs and petty theft. Kimber’s dad, Mike Reynolds, drafted a “three strikes and you’re out” law for punishing repeat offenders. After advertising it as a way to keep violent repeat offenders off the street, California passed the law two years later (Laird, 2013). The law doubled prison time for a second felony if the offender had a prior serious or violent felony. If an offender had two prior serious or violent felonies, it would mean 25 years to life for “third strike” even though the third felony did not have to be serious or violent. As a result, people in California were sentenced to life in prison for petty theft and drug possession (Laird,
The assumption that all three-time offenders are incorrigible criminals is an oversimplification of a more complex problem. Three-strikes is based on this assumption that a few extreme cases are representative of all criminals. Mimi Silbert points...
the "Three Strikes" law. There has been a swift and dramatic impact on crime since the enactment of the "Three Strikes" law. The crime rate has dropped more than 30%. But
Crime in New Orleans is treacherously high; it has been the worst year since 2004. The ordeal lies with trying to teach old dogs new tricks instead of doing the unattainable the justice system should focus on children who are still innocent and deserving of a better future. Kids need persistent discipline, but if their parents are sluggish on the matter how are they going to learn right from wrong? P.A.S.T. will help teach kids that the violence is nothing but history. The program will help children in any household setting because the program’s converge doesn’t have much to do with the children’s parents, nor is it optional. Therefore, the parents will not have a choice in the matter of having their children taken out of P.A.S.T. that will be determined solely by the judge, but they can request for their child to be placed into the program. The program is focused on the first crime or things children would normally not receive punitive measures for whether it either be in the household or in public ranging from acts of defiance to misdemeanors, such as stealing small items, getting in fights, or relentless disrespect or abuse towards parents or siblings. Ways to improve the crime rate in New Orleans are to follow the step process of P.A.S.T which is to punish, assess, show sentiment, and thrive.
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...
Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs by Samuel Walker Samuel Walker, author of Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs, presented us in his book with forty-eight propositions that dealt with crime, drugs, and our efforts toward getting rid of these problems. A few of these propositions informed us on positive actions taking place in our criminal justice system, but the majority of them told us what was not working to fight crime and drugs. One of those propositions that was a negative aspect of our justice system today in Mr. Walker's eyes was the "three strikes and you're out" laws (referred to here after as three strikes laws). He gives numerous reasons why this law is not considered to be an effective one. This paper will first explain Walker's view on the issue and then review some of the current research and opinions on the matter.
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...
While this law was created to keep people who really deserve to spend their lives in prison locked up, it often affects other non-violent criminals who have made bad decisions. The statistics are staggering as well. Currently out of all the people who are in incardinated under the three strikes law, less than half are in for violent crimes (“Three Strikes”). America needs to seriously reevaluate their three strike laws. It does not necessarily have to be taken completely off the law book, as it does have its place for some offenders.
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
Approaches to crime prevention have emerged over time and are demonstrated in different solutions, practices, and policies executed by law enforcement, courts, corrections, family, and community. Some of the dominant approaches to crime prevention currently used by law enforcement, courts, corrections, family, and community are: situational crime prevention, crime prevention through social development, crime prevention through environmental design, community crime prevention, reduction of recidivism, and policing. In this essay, I will compare and contrast the dominant approaches used for crime prevention and analyze which approaches are most effective. I will identify and apply at least four approaches used in law enforcement, legislation, courts, corrections, family, and community within the crime prevention programs.