Is the “Three Strikes and
You’re Out” law cruel and
unusual punishment?
The purpose of my research paper is to analize how the “Three Strikes Law”
helps to support our Constitution or violates it. I will discuss where the law came
from and why we have it. I will also write about the positive and negative aspects
of the law as a whole. I hope to be able to analize the spirit of the law versus the
letter of the law as it relates to this subject.
“In 1994 California voters approved a ballot initiative known as "Three
Strikes and You're Out." Basically what it means is that people who are convicted
of three felonies may end up facing life in prison.” There are some limitations
though on how this law is executed. Not any felony constitutes a strike. For the
first and second strikes only serious and violent felonies can count as a strike. Also
some juvinille crimes can count. For the third strike any felony can be the final
blow. While for the first two strikes it takes crimes like rape, kiddnapping, and
robbery; the third strike can be a crime as simple as carring brass knuckles.
This law “was enacted in 1994 after Polly Klaas was kidnapped from a
slumber party in her home and murderedby Richard Allen Davis, who had two prior
kidnapping convictions. The jury recommended that Davis be sentenced to death,
and the judge imposed that sentence.” “On March 7, 1994, Governor Wilson
signed into law AB 971 (Ch 12/94, Jones) referred to as the Three Strikes and
You're Out criminal sentencing measure. In November, the voters reaffirmed the
measure by overwhelmingly approving Proposition 184, an initiative that is
essentially identical to Chapter 12. The measure is the most significant change to
the state criminal justice system in more than a generation.” Govenor Wilson
passed this law as part of his goal to crack down on repeat offenders and
dangerous felons. The case of Richard Allen Davis was the prime example of how
the law could be effective.
The chance of reform is completely removed. Mimi Silbert, president of the Delancey Street Foundation, a half- way home for prisoners, tells the story of Albert who was sent to San Quentin Prison at age 19; by then he had committed 27 armed robberies. Under three-strikes-and-you're-out, he would still be in prison. Released at age 36, he is a caring father, works as a plumber and a substitute teacher, and has led a drug-free, crime-free life. A three-strikes law would deny this chance to Albert and to many others like him. Felons are capable of reform, but this law would deny them that chance.(Silbert)
The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.
Schiraldi, Vincent. "Three strikes and you're out: an examination of the impact of strikes laws 10 years after their enactment." Justice Policy Institute. Justice Policy Institute, march 2004. Web. 12 May 2015. .
that could lead to more than a year in prison. But states can often have differing views of what is
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
Ricky Franklin Smith was convicted for the breaking and entering that he plead guilty for. At the time of sentencing, the presentence investigation report contained his juvenile criminal record which was supposed to be automatically expunged. Smith appealed that he should be resentenced due to the presentence investigation report. The argument was to whether or not grant Smith the resentencing. In two previous cases, both arguments were made. In People v. Price ruled that the juvenile record that is automatically expunged, could not be considered at the time of sentencing or used in the presentence investigation report. On the other hand, in People v. Jones, the court ruled that it could be considered at the time of sentencing and used in the presentence investigation report. “The majority concluded that Price presented the better-reasoned approach. They added that the automatic expungement of juvenile convictions "is delusive and purposeless if law enforcement agencies may continue to use supposedly expunged records against a defendant to his prejudice. Following the Jones approach effectively subverts MCR 5.913."[7] The dissenting judge said that he believed that Jones represented "the better-reasoned analysis."[8]” (Justia.Law, 2015).
It is true that some felons can make bad judgments that are provocative and rebellious and the foundation to further jeopardy. In fact statistics show the number of times prisoners had been arrested was the best predictor of whether they would commit more crimes...
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)
Wabnik, Alisa. Bill Proposes Prison for 3rd Offense, Arizona Daily Star, March 16, 1998. http://www.azstarnet.com/plusb-cgi/fastw...
Juvenile crime in the United States is ballooning out of control along with adult crimes, and politicians and law enforcement officials don’t seem to be able to do anything about it. Despite tougher sentencing laws, longer probation terms, and all other efforts of lawmakers, the crime and recidivism rates in our country can’t be reduced. The failure of these recent measures along with new research and studies by county juvenile delinquency programs point to the only real cure to the U.S.’s crime problem: prevention programs. The rising crime rates in the United States are of much worry to most of the U.S.’s citizens, and seems to be gaining a sense of urgency. Crime ranks highest in nationwide polls as Americans’ biggest concern (Daltry 22). For good reason- twice as many people have been victims of crimes in the 1990s as in the 1970s (Betts 36). Four times as many people under the age of eighteen were arrested for homicide with a handgun in 1993 than in 1983 (Schiraldi 11A). These problems don’t have a quick fix solution, or even an answer that everyone can agree on. A study by the Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy has found no deterrent effects of the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law recently put into effect by politicians (Feinsilber 1A). It has been agreed however that there is not much hope of rehabilitating criminals once started on a life of crime. Criminologist David Kuzmeski sums up this feeling by saying, “If society wants to protect itself from violent criminals, the best way it can do it is lock them up until they are over thirty years of age.... I am not aware of any treatment that has been particularly successful.” The problem with his plan is that our country simply doesn’t have the jail space, or money to ...
have not come about without criticism on constitutional grounds. Any criticism should take into account the extraordinary recidivism rates found only in the criminal class of the s...
In this study Grunwald, Lockwood, Harris, and Mennis (2010) used four different juvenile recidivism outcomes to measure the rate of recidivism among juveniles. One of the outcomes measured new offenses and specific offenses relating to property, drug, or violence. When Grunwald and his team measured for recidivism
Even if you have been incarcerated because you committed a crime, you may still be eligible for
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.
According to Reference.com (2007), law is defined as: "rules of conduct of any organized society, however simple or small, that are enforced by threat of punishment if they are violated. Modern law has a wide sweep and regulates many branches of conduct." Essentially law is the rules and regulations that aid in governing conduct, handling disputes, and dealing with criminal actions.