Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of "three strikes" legislation
What are the most effective ways to lower the crime rate
Three strikes law problems
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of "three strikes" legislation
The best solution to an increase in crime rates in New Mexico would be to implement a stronger three strikes law because putting the repeat offenders behind bars for committing the violent crime that is dangerous to the society, which is one step closer to improving the problem. The tougher three strikes law would have the mandatory longer prison time for the criminals which is definitely needed to reform the three strikes law in New Mexico. However, if we do not happen to make the three strikes law tougher in New Mexico, we will significantly see an increase in the violent crime rate in the future which might become difficult to control later as it will become so wider than before. I believe it is still better to make the law harsher because …show more content…
Being soft on crime is another offer to rise crime rate because the offenders would know that there is no one to stop them, so they can do anything they want. In 2012-2013, New Mexico City has seen an increase in crimes rate, especially when the three strikes law was very weak and was not enough to take off the criminals from the streets. In 2012-2013, Susana Martinez sees an increase in crime rate that rose by 6.6% (Kent and Froehlich). After seeing the increase in crime rate, Susana Martinez decided to announce that the only way we will be able to reduce the crime rates of the state is by pushing for tougher three strikes law in New Mexico and change some crimes to misdemeanors. I agree that making the three strikes law tougher is not that simple. However, the only way we will be able to get out of that problem is by getting strict on the law as there is no other way, I seem to find that would work best to solve this problem in New …show more content…
The solution to this problem would definitely a big relief for New Mexico community because they would have one less thing to worry about especially when people go out alone and it would absolutely make the city shine more on a safe side, than before. It is very shocking to know that there are still some people out there in the world who are tolerating all the violent crime, and still taking no action against them, it is only the state of New Mexico, senators and governors who are willing to do something to decrease the crime rate. We all need to put this agony to an end as soon as possible, if we keep tolerating all these violent crimes to ourselves, this would be one of the biggest crimes we are committing to ourselves. If you want to stop all the toleration by criminals in the state or nationally, you should go vote for tougher three strikes law on www.sos.state.nm.us where you can register for 2016 voting session. Along with voting you can also donate for the New Mexico victims at http://donatelifenm.org/ , and keep continuing the good deeds for your
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
...to improve on their public image, and with crime as one of the most important issues in the American awareness, this issue is one that they address regularly. The solutions to this issue will come easier when the politicians decide to find the right ways to deter crime and not just try to hide the criminals.
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)
It is difficult to determine whether the three-strikes law in Washington is an effective form of legislation. In 1993, Washington was the first state in the nation to adopt three-strikes legislation which imposed a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for persons convicted for a third specific violent felony. The action was fueled by the highly publicized death of Diane Ballasiotes, who was raped and murdered by a convicted rapist who had been released from prison. Voters, who were overcome with emotion over the atrocious acts committed by a released felon, passed the bill by a three to one margin. California followed suit, passing similar legislation in 1994. By 1999, 26 states in the nation had approved comparable laws. Although similar there are variations in the specifics, such as which offenses qualify as a strike and the number of strikes needed to be "out". In twenty states three strikes are required. In one state, a mandatory life is imposed after the second strike.
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 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
In fact, the law had the opposite effect. One study, conducted by Marvell and Moody, showed evidence that criminals who are eligible for life in prison due to a third strike are more likely to commit a third offense. Additionally, Kovandzic, Sloan, and Vieraitis presented evidence on homicide rates which increased, subsequent to the passage of the three strike law, from 1980 to 1999 (Marion et al., 2012). The basic thought from these studies was if a criminal was facing life in prison with a third strike; this individual has nothing to lose by murdering a police officer in order to evade arrest. Therefore, the three strike law might have worsened the problem of violent crime and vice deterred it (Marion et al., 2012).
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.
We need to lower the causes for crime and prevent it in the first place. We also need to decrease the punishment.
Individual states who have reduced both prison populations and crime rates are proving smart reforms can make communities safer and save the tax payers money. In 2007 the state of Texas, a traditionally red state, adopted legislation offering sentencing alternatives to low-level, nonviolent offenders which in turn decreased prison populations by fourteen percent and crime rates by twenty nine percent. Just a few years later Connecticut a progressively blue state legislated a second chances society, allowing nonviolent offenders a diversion program offering mandatory rehabilitation and treatment options. Crime in Connecticut now hits a fifty-year low and their prison population is the smallest it has been in two decades (Harris,
The most important way to help reduce crime is to enforce the laws. The government needs to hire and train more police officers and have them visible in the cities, but mainly where there is a lot of known crime. Before Katrina New Orleans was a dying city. Since Katrina it is slowly coming back to life, but unless changes are made to control the violence New Orleans will once again be a dying city. Law enforcement needs to take control of the outrages of violence and fix the city’s dysfunctional criminal justice
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...
In addition, the new scope on combating crime also projected many policy implications as the conservative theory is applied to the criminal justice system today. Across the board, the conservative theory holds true to “get tough on crime” as it called to hire more law enforcement officers throughout the nation. Eventually this would lead the government and local law enforcement agencies to increase their force not only in personnel but also in equipment and other necessary items that are essential to each law enforcement officer. Simply put, it would cost the agencies more money due to the combating crime rates with more arrests. In addition, this would also lead to the increase and hiring of more judges/magistrates, prison guards, prisons, and essential staffing within the criminal justice system. According to Lilly, Cullen, and Ball (2015), “the financial burdens of prison during the fiscally tight times of the 1980s furnished ample motivation to search for alternative methods of social control. Still, in turning to community corrections, conservatives brought a distinctive look” (p. 345). Interesting enough, the rise of the criminal justice services throughout the nation continued to build, as agencies got tough on crime, however, the taxes and financial burdens are felt even two decades later. Overall the influence of getting tough on crime/ the conservative movement focused on the individual motives as the cause for crime. As the focus narrowed, the policies that were implemented created positive and negative impacts on society. If such polices continued to strive for more policing into the twenty-first century and continued to dawn the extreme “get tough on crime” lens then taxes and financial issues would grow out of control. To that end, the United States continues to feel the effect of the conservative movement in the 1980s
There prison population is overpopulated with people just like these. The people in these cases needed help, whether it be employment opportunities, rehabilitation, an alternative to prison, or even a lesser sentence. We have learned that throwing everyone who has a problem in prison and letting them rot behind bars is not the answer. We have only created another problem that our prisons have become overcrowded, and when these offenders finally come out of prison they have a high risk to go right back in. We have to put funding back into communities, society needs to stop spending so much money on sending people to prison, and spend more money trying to keep them out. Society has to put funding back into creating employment opportunities, affordable rehab, and focus on low income communities who need the most help. We need to leave the violent offenders that we are afraid of for prison, and for the people that really need help we can 't put them in jail. Mandatory Minimum sentences are not the answer, this bill needs to be reformed. We have learned that our prisons are filled with people just like Angelos, Echols, and Lockwood who didn’t deserve such harsh sentences and would have benefitted from a judge 's discretion. These people lives would not have been ruined by these sentences if they had better