We live in a world of laws, statutes, and regulations. This society has to enforce all of it in order to keep this country from going into complete chaos. Some laws can cause a large amount of controversy and debate over it. Specifically speaking, the Three Strikes and You’re Out Law. This one law has many people arguing for and against it. Statements from many saying that it is unjust and unfair, while others say that is what our society needs in order to keep this world safe from those career criminals. I strongly agree with the Three Strikes Law; although, the law should be altered in order for fit the different situations of individuals.
Three Strikes and You’re Out is what you would think you would only hear watching a baseball game and not is a court room. Unfortunately people that commit crimes and get punished don’t always stop and start being human to society. So exactly what is the Three Strikes Law? The Three strikes law sets a mandatory sentencing for 25 years to life in incarceration for repeat offenders. These offenders have been convicted of two violent crimes in the past, and any crime, whether a misdemeanor or felony to be convicted under the Three Strikes Law. This sets a standard on how much the courts can take of one person who has been convicted of violent crimes and petty crimes. There are many murders that could have been prevented if this law was enforced before the law was enforced.
What brought the idea of this law? A man named Mike Reynolds had a daughter that was going to turn 19 years old. She ended up being murdered on June 29, 1992, in Tower District here in Fresno by a criminal that should have been locked up; he was a repeat felon (Jones). Mike, like any father would be was angry with the f...
... middle of paper ...
...ee with the law but I agree with the Three Strikes Law.
Works Cited
Braswell, Michael, John Fuller, and Bo Lozaff. Corrections, Reach Making, and Restorative Justice: Transforming Individuals and Institutions. Cincinnati: Anderson, 2001.
Davis, Kariann. Email interview. 23 Nov. 2009.
Jones, Bill. “Three Strikes and You’re Out: Five Years Later.” Three Strikes and You’re Out Stop Repeat Offenders.02 Dec. 2009. http://www.threestrikes.org/bjones98_pgone.html.
Messerli, Joe. “Is the Three Strike Law, Which Provides Mandatory 25-to-Life Sentences for a Third Felony Conviction, a Good Idea?” Balance politics. 15 Oct. 2006. 28 Oct 2009. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/three_strikes.htm.
Reynolds, Mike, Bill Jones, and Dan Evans. Three Strikes and You’re Out: A Promise to Kimber. Fresno: Quill Driver, 1996.
Robison, Mike. Email interview. 23 Nov. 2009.
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.
Three Strikes You're Out of Law. We have all heard of the newest anti-crime law, the "Three strikes. and you’re out" of the law. It wasn’t easy getting this law from the bill stage.
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.
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 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...
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
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
The roots of this law actually come from Washington State. This state was the first state to actually pass a no-nonsense three strikes policy. The first movement toward this began in the summer of 1991 as research project for the Washington Institute for Policy Studies. The main goals for the project were to examine and review the current practices of sentencing career criminals, and to make recommendations as needed. The researchers wanted anyone who as convicted of a third serious felony to be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. They wanted there to be no sympathy whatsoever for the criminals. This law was not enforced there until December 1993. (Lacourse, p.1)
Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879-892.
Evolved from English common law, the United States judiciary system is an intricate series of complex judgments, decisions, and procedures. A corner-stone of this systematic practice, is the belief that a crime against an individual is a crime against society at large, therefore must be punished by that same society. The intent of incarceration is to rehabilitate the offender, so that they might return to society and become productive members of it.
Sung, L. G.-e. (2011). Rethinking Corrections: Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration. Thousand Oaks : SAGE Publications.
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 ...
Johnstone, G. and Ness, D. (2007) Handbook of Restorative Justice. USA: Willan Publishing. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-big-question-what-are-the-alternatives-to-prison-and-do-they-work-419388.html [Accessed 01 January 2014].
As the purpose of restorative justice is to mend the very relationship between the victim, offender, and society, communities that embrace restorative justice foster an awareness on how the act has harmed others. Braithwaite (1989) notes that by rejecting only the criminal act and not the offender, restorative justice allows for a closer empathetic relationship between the offender, victims, and community. By acknowledging the intrinsic worth of the offender and their ability to contribute back to the community, restorative justice shows how all individuals are capable of being useful despite criminal acts previous. This encourages offenders to safely reintegrate into society, as they are encouraged to rejoin and find rapport with the community through their emotions and
Although much of the current scholarly information dichotomizes justice into two schools of thought, it should be realized that true justice encompasses both punishment-centered and rehabilitation-centered ideas. Often times, these ideas co-occur to create a more realistic depiction of justice in practice. Furthermore, a more honest approach toward policy should be examined and openly discussed by the Department of Justice. This way, the citizenry who participate in the democracy of the United States can have a better understanding of the issues regarding the type of punitiveness towards offenders. Doing so would encourage a better understanding and more agreeable state of the justice system, one that should be characteristic of the democratic process.