Measure 11. This is the law that gives people a mandatory minimum sentence starting at 5 years 10 months, and going up all the way to 25 years in prison. The law gives a list of about 21 crimes that, if committed by a person, come with a set amount of time that must be served day for day by the offender, without any chance of good-time, work-time, or the possibility of a second look. Applying to ages 15 and up, this law takes the power out of the judge’s hands when it comes to sentencing someone, and forces the judge to give a mandatory minimum sentence regardless of the specific circumstances involving the case at hand. The Measure 11 laws, which range from Arson to Murder, carry a heavy minimum sentence starting at 5 years 10 months to 25 years in prison. This law, though having good intentions, was written poorly and has had some serious side effects on our state budget, and more importantly, today’s youth.
In 1994, when Measure 11 was placed on the ballot for vote, there were many spoken pros and cons that would come with the passing of the bill. They told us that Measure 11 would keep our communities safe and would even lower our states violent crime rate. But the most important pro about Measure 11, however, was the fact that it would give serious time to repeat offenders. Time and time again, the victims of heinous crimes were tired of the offender getting off with a slap on the wrist. So, with what the victims said in mind, congress decided to make a bill that would give offenders a mandatory minimum prison sentence if they committed specific crimes.
On the other hand, though, there were many cons that came along with bill as well. Some of these cons were the obvious facts that the prison population would rise over th...
... middle of paper ...
...sed for all the right reasons. The bill, in itself, was meant to protect our communities, keep our kids safe, and be a cheap solution to crime. But due to how ambiguous the bill was written, a large number of Oregonians, especially juveniles, have been affected in ways that were not anticipated. Personally, I believe that the bill should be amended in such a way that it puts the power back into the judge’s hands when dealing with specific cases. This could prove helpful in avoiding injustices when it comes to the sentencing of juveniles by giving judges a chance to evaluate each case’s circumstances before giving mandatory minimum sentences.
Works Cited
-http://www.repealmeasure11.org/
-http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/03/report_on_oregons_measure_11_incites_fierce_debate.html
-http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/measure11/index.htm
The senseless and irrational analysis behind these mandatory minimum sentencing laws that left judges with no choice but to hand out deva...
Uniquely, with such staggering numbers of multiple offenders, the criminal justice system is choosing to release the incarceration sentence of murder and aggravated assault offenders to kill more of the population in which they believe will lower the rate of violent crimes. Those are serious offenses that goes unsupported by the system but offenders who commit civil crimes such as too many traffic violations or minors who commit status offense crimes are serving time that should be thrown out. The system is losing its core values to serve and protect. In reference to the movie The Purge, it is a way the government saves money with allowing harsh offenders to continue committing crimes. The government will save money. They will not give assistance to low wage citizens for food stamps or EBT, no health insurance, no unemployment, or workers compensation if the low
Recently, one of the most popular proposals in the effort to get tough on crime has been the "three-strikes-and-you're-out" proposal. This law, which is already in effect in Washington state and California, requires that offenders convicted of three violent crimes be sentenced to life in prison without parole. This proposal has received broad-based support from federal and state politicians including President Bill Clinton, Senator Bob Dole, and Governor Mario Cuomo. The law is based on the idea that the majority of felonies are committed by 6% of "hard core" criminals, and that crime can be reduced by getting these criminals off the streets. Unfortunately, the proposal fails to take into account several major flaws in the law and its implementation.
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
Since the 1980s, the federal prison population of the US has grown from 24,640 to 214,149 (Population Statistics 1). This figure may appear miniscule given the fact that there are over 300 million people residing within the United States. However, this is just one figure of many; currently, the United States holds the largest prison population total out of any country at 2,217,000 (Prison Population Total 1). This major increase in incarceration is not the product of a higher crime rate, but due to the creation of sentencing guidelines that followed the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. These guidelines require that certain federal and state crimes result in a set minimum of years in prison. The minimum sentencing guidelines
Most states had stiffer criminal sanction in place before the three strikes law came into play for repeat offender and most of these criminals would serve lengthy terms for their repeat offenses anyways, however the discretion to impose those lengthy prison sentences was at the hands of the judge time (1 Marvell, Moody 90). One must also consider that not all criminals are even aware that the three strike law exist much less are aware of what its implications would be on their repeat offenses. An...
Mandatory minimum prison sentences are punishments that are set through legislation for specific offenses. They have been used throughout history for different crimes. The four traditional goals of punishment are: deterrence, incapacitation (incarceration), retribution, and rehabilitation. With the state of our national economy, cutting prison and corrections costs would be a huge savings. On the surface, it may seem that mandatory minimum sentences would serve the traditional goals of punishment. They would discourage potential criminals, keep society safe for longer periods of time, they would punish the offender and they would rehabilitate the offender. What they did not do, however, is take into account the individual circumstances of each case and each defendant. Mandatory minimum sentences are not effective and they should be repealed.
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,
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
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the year 1980 we had approximately 501,900 persons incarcerated across the United States. By the year 2000, that figure has jumped to over 2,014,000 prisoners. The current level of incarceration represents the continuation of a 25-year escalation of the nation's prison and jail population beginning in 1973. Currently the U.S. rate of 672 per 100,000 is second only to Russia, and represents a level of incarceration that is 6-10 times that of most industrialized nations. The rise in prison population in recent years is particularly remarkable given that crime rates have been falling nationally since 1992. With less crime, one might assume that fewer people would be sentenced to prison. This trend has been overridden by the increasing impact of lengthy mandatory sentencing policies.
Overcrowding in our state and federal jails today has become a big issue. Back in the 20th century, prison rates in the U.S were fairly low. During the years later due to economic and political factors, that rate began to rise. According to the Bureau of justice statistics, the amount of people in prison went from 139 per 100,000 inmates to 502 per 100,000 inmates from 1980 to 2009. That is nearly 261%. Over 2.1 million Americans are incarcerated and 7.2 million are either incarcerated or under parole. According to these statistics, the U.S has 25% of the world’s prisoners. (Rick Wilson pg.1) Our prison systems simply have too many people. To try and help fix this problem, there needs to be shorter sentences for smaller crimes. Based on the many people in jail at the moment, funding for prison has dropped tremendously.
Most people have the common view that the criminal justice system’s increasing arrests and imprisonment is an effective strategy for reducing crime. If the judicial system makes greater distinction among violent and nonviolent crimes, the prisons will have the vacancies to incarcerate the Jeffery Dahmers of the world in prison for life. By providing alternatives to imprisonment for nonviolent offenders will reduce the burden of taxpayer’s dollars for added funding for construction of new prisons. I know as a College Student I would like to see increased State funding for education system rather than the millions allocated to the prison system of Pennsylvania.
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...
Perhaps the most common argument against mass incarceration is the cost. Weisberg and Petersilia explain a “cost-benefit” rationality surrounding mass incarceration. The public still wants to incapacitate and punish violent offenders, but are becoming more lenient towards non-violent drug offenders. This is because the societal cost to imprison non-violent offenders has reached a threshold that is no longer fully tolerated. This is due to the actual cost of the current prison system to taxpayers, the socioeconomic costs and socially stratifying effects of imprisonment, and the collateral costs of imprisonment on the country as a whole. However, in implementation knee jerk reactions that cut costs often undermine programs that are designed
...eir illegal lifestyles and return to prison over and over again. When it finally did realize this, the population in prisons was one percent of the population of the entire United States. Through trial and error, the government set up programs to rehabilitate and reenter offenders back into society. But society no longer wanted convicts to live within its confines. So, without a change in society, offenders were sent back to their dangerous ways. Finally, after so many years of trial and error, of failed program after another, the Second Chance Act drafted and signed into law. With this act, organizations and state governments were federally granted hundreds of millions of dollars to help offenders finally reenter society and be successful. Although the tip of the iceberg has just been scratched, it is better late than never to finally start resolving this problem.