Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The three strikes law pros and cons
Questions about the three strikes law
Questions about the three strikes law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The three strikes law pros and cons
Do “3 Strikes” Sentencing Laws Help To Reduce Serious Crime
The three strikes laws is a law that was first used in the 1990’s and is an extension of the rational choice theory, which allows for a person to be sentenced to life in prison after their third strike. Should a minor crime receive the same punishment as a major crime? California’s three strikes law leaves no room for error in criminal activity for repeat offenders. Once you have committed three serious crimes you are then sentenced twenty five years to life in prison. How does this affect our society and how does the government respond to this law. Does this law really keeping the public safe by locking up minor criminal offenders, or are we just spending billions on the prison system. What does it mean to be for or against it, should this apply to everyone in all criminal situations given minor vs. major crimes? Why have lawmakers chosen this as a determination of punishment? According to John R. Schafer, he argues that “strictly enforced three strikes laws are an effective crime control policy and may break the cycle of crime for youthful offender” (Schafer, 1999). However on the other hand Attorney Michael Vitiello states that “the three strikes laws have not delivered on their promises to reduce serious crime. Moreover, the costs of such laws appear to outweigh their benefits” (Vitiello, 2002).
First the deterrent effect of the three strikes laws is that it keeps repeat offenders in prison for a long time. After a person’s second conviction if they do not refrain from criminal activity the person will receive their third strike. This law ensures that repeat offenders stay in jail and protect law abiding citizens. The law also sends a stern me...
... middle of paper ...
...ate more and more money which we already don’t have and could use for other things. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/three_strikes.htm
Finally the three strikes law is in fact a law and regardless of the crime, if a person chooses and continues to commit crimes they will be incarcerated and for some it will be a life sentence. Even with all the controversy behind this law I still agree with Schafer. Breaking the cycle of crime in our youth would be the best choice of action. Keeping our young offenders out of prison would reduce our overwhelming price tag that the state of California and taxpayers pay each year. In the end the most violent and dangerous criminals will continue to commit crimes irrespective of the law. I believe this law continues to protect the normal day to day citizen and still prevents the minor criminal from committing some crimes.
The adult system’s shifts leaked into the juvenile system, causing an increase in incarcerations even when delinquency rates were declining at the time. Juvenile reform legislations prompted more compulsory sentencing and more determinate sentences for juveniles, lowering of the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, considerable ease in obtaining waivers to adult court for juvenile prosecution, and made it easier to gain access to juvenile records as well. Furthermore, it led to greater preoccupation with chronic, violent offenders, which in turn led to a redirection of resources for their confinement. Thereby, the absence of reliable criteria for identifying such offenders tends to stereotype all delinquents and is more likely to raise the level of precautionary confinements. These three major shifts in juvenile justice policy demonstrate the power and depth of traditional beliefs about the causes and cures of crimes in U.S. society. It also shows how the system can bend for a time in the direction of new approaches to prevention and control. Today, we are presently in a time of conservative responses where the prevailing views about crime express beliefs about prevention, retribution, and incapacitation that are profoundly rooted in our
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,
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 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.
Officially known as Habitual offender laws; “Three Strikes” laws have become common place in 29 states(Chern) within the United States and the Federal Court system; these laws have been designed to counter criminal recidivism by incapacitation through the prison system. The idea behind the laws were to maximize the criminal justice systems deterrent and selective incapacitation effect, under this deterrence theory individuals would be dissuaded from committing criminal activity by the threat of state imposed incarceration. Californians voted in the “three strikes” law (proposition 184) on March 7 1994 by a 72% vote with the intention of reducing crime by targeting serious repeat offenders with long term incarceration thereby eliminating the ability to commit another offense.
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.
This approach has been instituted in California and the PI believes it should serve as a model for the entire country’s juvenile justice systems to help teens discover the alternatives to crime and to prevent offending or re-offending in youth.
Studies and anecdotes have shown that our modern approach, however, is ill-equipped to reduce crime or deal with chronic delinquents while at the same time protecting their due liberties. We now stand on the precipice of decision: How can we strike an appropriate balance in the juvenile justice system? Should we even retain a separate system for children at all? The answers are usually difficult, sometimes subtle, but always possible to attain.
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...
The inappropriate or unnecessary use of incarceration is “expensive, ineffective, and inhumane,” and initiates a “cycle of juvenile reoffending” (Bala et. al, 2009). A study conducted by Mann (2014) exemplifies this cycle of youth reoffending. The youth interviewed demonstrated that despite a stay in sentenced custody, the threat of future punishment was not enough to deter from future offences. Cook and Roesch (2012) demonstrate that youth have developmental limitations that can impair their involvement in the justice system; for example, not understanding their sentencing options properly or their competence to stand trial. Therefore, deterrence as a justification for youth incarceration is ineffective, as incarceration proves to be not a strong enough deterrent. Alternative methods such as extrajudicial measures and community-based sanctions were considered more effective (Cook & Roesch,
While this law was created to keep people who really deserve to spend their lives in prison locked up, it often affects other non-violent criminals who have made bad decisions. The statistics are staggering as well. Currently out of all the people who are in incardinated under the three strikes law, less than half are in for violent crimes (“Three Strikes”). America needs to seriously reevaluate their three strike laws. It does not necessarily have to be taken completely off the law book, as it does have its place for some offenders.
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...
...e data I gathered from both sides of the argument, I have come to a conclusion on whether the law is just. Personally, I feel these laws are not as harsh as some people have made them out to be. We must tackle criminals of any kind to maintain a good society. How can we have this good society if habitual offenders keep polluting it? Deterrence seems positively correlated with the facts I presented in the argument that supported the Three Strikes law. Crime went down with the implementation of these laws. My overall thoughts are that if a person cannot grow and learn from their mistakes to become better individuals, then they must be taken off our streets. Criminals are just that C R I M I N A L S. Certain crimes serve as stepping stones to more violent crimes. The threat of these long sentences may stop a second time offender from committing their third offense. This law can help reduce the prison population by serving as a deterrent to these potential repeat offenders.
This research seeks to establish whether making the penalty stiff will work in repeating repeat and future offenders. This research is tied to a larger theory that harsh punishments act as a deterrent to crime. They work by making people not commit a crime for fear of the punishment that is going to follow. This research is applicable across many facets of crimes that are rampant. It is going to help identify whether enacting stricter laws and enforcing them helps in reducing the relate...
Juvenile delinquency is a problem that affects society as a whole. Understanding Juvenile delinquency is important because it is part of trying to figure out how people in American society should react to it; specifically, in terms of law enforcement officers, their agencies, and State legislators. When deviant behavior becomes "continuous, chronic and widespread it gets perceived as a significant part of the population as threatening to the general well-being of society" (Thompson and Bynum, 2010, p. 44). This is a societal problem that requires attention from various forms of social control. However, a lot of the burden is absorbed by an imperfect Juvenile Justice System. As time has passed, argument has ensued over what should be done with the Juvenile Court System. Should the court system be reformed or simply abolished? Barry C. Feld believes that there are enough factors to support the abolishment of the Juvenile Court System and supports an integrated approach (Hickey, 2010). Others, like Vincent Schiraldi and Jason Ziedenberg, believe that the transfer of kids "into adult court is unnecessary, harmful and racist" (Kelly, 2010, Lecture Unit 3). While reforming the system may seem like the best idea, there are certain factors that inhibit proper changes from being made. Creating a separate court system for juveniles has caused a number of consequences for youth.