Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The three strikes law pros and cons
What is the probem with three strikes law
What is the probem with 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
The Three Strikes laws is a law that was first employed in the 1990’s and was established due to the public's dissatisfaction with other laws that were not reducing crime. In 2012 legislators finally realized that the Three Strikes law was not doing what it was intended to do and revised it to impose life sentences to the most violently dangerous criminals. The law allows for a person to be sentenced to prison for 25 years to life after their third strike. Prior to 2012 all crimes committed by criminals were considered under the three strikes. It suggested that if a criminal had two strikes and committed a minor crime they would receive the same punishment for the petty offense as the person accused of a major crime? For many years this is exactly what happened. California’s Three Strikes law had allowed no room for error to any criminal activity for repeat offenders. Once an individual had committed three serious crimes they are then sentenced to twenty five years to life in prison. At first society and government officials respond positively due to the getting tough on crime policy but did this law really keeping the public safe by locking up all those petty criminal offenders, or are we just spending billions of tax payers dollars on the prison system. What does it mean to be for or against it, should this apply to everyone in all criminal situations given the fact that some are minor verses major violent crimes? In a study by Kovandzic found, first, that Three Strikes laws are positively associated with homicide rates in cities in three strikes states and, second, that cities in Three Strikes states witnessed no significant reduction in crime rates. Kovandzic, et al. 2004. What Kovandzic is indicating is that criminals ...
... middle of paper ...
...525/fsr.2010.22.3.171
Stephen, A. (2002). In California, a man stole a few kids' videotapes from his local Kmart. Now the us supreme court will decide if he must stay in prison for 50 years. New Statesman, 131 (4587), 10.
Vitiello, M. (1997). Three strikes: Can we return to rationality? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 87 (2), 395. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218439889?accountid=10358
“The Deterrent Effect of Three Strikes Laws” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin April 1999
Walsh, C. J. (2011). OUT OF THE STRIKE ZONE: WHY GRAHAM V. FLORIDA MAKES IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO USE JUVENILE-AGE CONVICTIONS AS STRIKES TO MANDATE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE UNDER § 841 (b) (1) (A). American University Law Review, 61 (1), 165-204. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/905187795?accountid=10358
Seigal, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
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.
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.
Hickey, T. J. (2010). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Crime and Criminology, 9th Edition. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
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...
Starting in 1970s, there has been an upward adjustment to sentencing making punishment more punitive and sentencing guidelines more strict. Martinson's (1974) meta-analyzies reviewed over 200 studies and concluded that nothing works in terms of rehabilitating prisoners. Rehabilitating efforts were discontinued. The War on Drugs campaign in 1970s incarcerated thousands of non-violent drug offenders into the system. In 1865, 34.3% of prison population were imprisoned for drug violation. By 1995, the percentage grew to 59.9% (figure 4.1, 104). Legislation policies like the Third Strikes laws of 1994 have further the severity of sentencing. The shift from rehabilitation to human warehouse marks the end of an era of trying to reform individuals and the beginnings of locking inmates without preparation of their release. Along with the reform in the 1970s, prosecutors are given more discretion at the expense of judges. Prosecutors are often pressure to be tough on crime by the socie...
DELIBERATING CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: A WAY OUT OF GET TOUGH JUSTICE? Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 37-43. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from Criminal Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 1016637721).
...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.
Schmalleger, F. (2009), Prentice Hall, Publication. Criminal Justice Today: An introductory Text for the 21st century
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27, 343-360. http://ccj.sagepub.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/content/27/3/342
Lippman, M. (2012). Contemporary Criminal Law Concepts, Cases and Controversies (3rd ed.). [Vitalsouce Bookshelf version]. Retrieved from http://online.vitalsource.com/books/9781452277660/5/3
The Classical School of Criminology generally refers to the work of social contract and utilitarian philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham during the enlightenment in the 18th century. The contributions of these philosophers regarding punishment still influence modern corrections today. The Classical School of Criminology advocated for better methods of punishment and the reform of criminal behaviour. The belief was that for a criminal justice system to be effective, punishment must be certain, swift and in proportion to the crime committed. The focus was on the crime itself and not the individual criminal (Cullen & Wilcox, 2010). This essay will look at the key principles of the Classical School of Criminology, in particular