More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguements for the three strikes legislation
Arguements for the three strikes legislation
Arguements for the three strikes legislation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguements for the three strikes legislation
Starting in 1993, over half the states and the federal government enacted some form of “three strike and you’re out” legislation also sometimes called the “habitual offender law” (Marion and Oliver, p.350. 2012). The state of Washington was the first to implement the three strike law; the state of California soon followed with a broader version of the law. The three strike law made mandatory those offenders who have been convicted three times for serious crimes to be sentenced to life in prison. Even though adopted versions of the law vary among states, some states reduce judicial discretion while some states allowed some judicial discretion. For example, the state of California requires twenty-five years to life in prison for any individual
One concern with the implementation was overcrowding of the prisons. One study conducted discovered that in the first twelve months of implementation that there was a huge increase in prison populations, however the numbers of incarcerations had leveled off and decrease. Additionally, due to the increase in new incarcerations, thousands of less violent prisoners had to be released. Also, there have been studies that have shown that the three strike laws have had unintended consequences. Two studies showed that the three strike law did not reduce the number of homicides. 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 homicides 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 vice deter it (Marion et al.,
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,
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.
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...
In 1968, Herbert Packer was a Stanford University law professor who constructed two models of criminal process, due process and crime control. The due process model was Packer’s view that criminal defendants should be presumed innocent, courts must protect suspects’ rights, and there must be come limits placed on police powers. The crime control model is a model that emphasizes law and order and argues that every effort must be made to suppress crime, and to try, convict, and incarcerate offenders. Packer’s crime control model suggested that most cases ended in guilty please or withdrawals. In contrast, his due process model suggested that cases that go to trail and are appealed were the most influential. The due process and crime control model differentiate in
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
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.
Overcrowding of prisons due to mass incarceration is among one of the biggest problems in America, mass incarceration has ruined many families and lives over the years.America has the highest prison population rate , over the past forty years from 1984 until 2014 that number has grown by four hundred percent .America has four percent of the world population ,but twenty-five percent of the world population of incarcerated people Forty one percent of American juveniles have been or going to be arrested before the age of 23. America has been experimenting with incarceration as a way of showing that they are tough on crime but it actually it just show that they are tough on criminals. imprisonment was put in place to punish, criminals, protect society and rehabilitate criminals for their return into the society .
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 ...
Schonebaum, Stephen E. "A Swifter Death Penalty Would Be An Effective Deterrent." Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: David L. Bender; Greenhaven Press Inc. 1998. 18.