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
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
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.
A 1997 RAND Corporation study found that treatment of heavy drug users was almost ten times more cost effective in reducing drug use, sales, and drug-related crime than longer mandatory sentences (Echols, 2014). Other studies have shown that mandatory penalties have no demonstrable marginal or short-term effects on overall crime reduction either. Congress established mandatory sentences in order to incarcerate high-level drug criminals, but according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, only 11 percent of drug charged prisoners fit that description (Echols, 2014). Most of those incarcerated are low-level offenders, whose spots in drug trafficking are easily filled by other people. Mandatory minimum sentencing is essentially a waste of scarce criminal justice resources and federal funds that could be used elsewhere, and The Smarter Sentencing Act’s reduction of mandatory minimums can be the first step in eliminating minimum sentencing altogether. Ideally, given the opportunity for discretion, judges would be more inclined to issue more effective alternatives to incarceration, such as rehabilitation programs and/or
...s A. Preciado, but despite these wrong decisions being made by juveniles, they deserve a second chance to better themselves as potential future citizens. Even Gail garinger who was a former juvenile judge believes that they are capable such manner, In her article, “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences” written March 14, 2012 and published by New York Times, it states that “as a former juvenile court judge, I have seen firsthand the enormous capacity of children to change and turn themselves around. The same malleability that makes them vulnerable to peer pressure also makes them promising candidates for rehabilitation”. I believe, and still do, that even though juveniles that have taken a wrong path, regardless of what they 've done, need guidance from us and people who were once juveniles to mentor them and be given a second chance, just as I did a long time ago.
Fair sentencing of youth state's “Children sentenced to life in prison without parole are often the most vulnerable members of our society” The Gail Garinger article, “Juveniles Don’t Deserve Life Sentences” discusses about children deserving a second opportunity. According to Garinger, children should receive a second chance and help so they could be mentally stable. According to Justice Elena Kagan she discusses that Juveniles without parole affects the way he develops throughout his life time. I agree with the majority decision that Juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison and that they should be given a second chance because they deserve to fix their mistakes.
The proliferation of prison overcrowding has been a rising concern for the U.S. The growing prison population poses considerable health and safety risks to prison staffs and employees, as well as to inmates themselves. The risks will continue to increase if no immediate actions are taken. Whereas fighting proliferation is fundamentally the duty of the U.S. government, prison overcrowding has exposed that the U.S. government will need to take measures to combat the flaws in the prison and criminal justice system. Restructuring the government to combat the danger of prison overcrowding, specifically in California, thus requires reforms that reestablishes the penal codes, increases the state’s budget, and develops opportunities for paroles to prevent their return to prison. The following context will examine and discuss the different approaches to reduce the population of state prisons in California in order to avoid prison overcrowding.
The overpopulation in the prison system in America has been an on going problem in the United States for the past two decades. Not only does it effect the American people who are also the tax payers to fund all of the convicts in prisons and jails, but it also effects the prisoners themselves. Family members of the prisoners also come into effect. Overpopulation in prison cause a horrible chain reaction that causes nothing but suffering and problems for a whole bunch people. Yet through all the problems that lye with the overpopulation in prisons, there are some solutions to fix this ongoing huge problem in America.
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...
Today there is a growing awareness of repeat offenders among society in reference to crime. Starting around 1980 there was noticeable increase in crime rates in the U.S.. In many of these cases it was noted that these individuals were in fact repeat offenders. So, on March 7, 1994 California enacted the Three-Strikes and You’re Out Law. This laws and other laws like it are currently being utilized today all around the Untied States. This law was first backed by victim’s rights advocates in the state to target habitual offenders. The reason California holds the most importance on this law is due to the fact that it has the largest criminal justice system in America, and it has the most controversy surrounding this law in particular.(Auerhahn, p.55)
... proponents say 'cracks down on the worst of the worst among teen criminals.' It is unbelievable that our society will allow for such a law. It seems unfair that a fourteen year old child can make a mistake and pay for it the rest of his/her life. The reason our system has never tried youth as adults is because they are not mature enough to think like an adult and take responsibility for themselves. At such a young age there is still hope for an alteration in his/her lifestyle, locking the child up only diminishes the chance of change. Children act out for attention and in many cases do whatever it takes to get that attention; even if it means bringing a gun to school, or going into a store and stealing a pack of gum. Our society must realize there is a problem with today's youth and find where it stems from - only then is there any hope for change. Putting children into prisons is like pushing dirt under a rug; the dirt can only sit for so long until someone realizes there's a problem and looks to see what the problem is. Our society has been pushing dirt under the rug for so long now that it's only a matter of time until the dirt chafes a hole right through the worn out rug.
According to the National Institute of Justice truth in sentencing refers to a range of sentencing practices that aim to reduce the uncertainty about the length of time that offenders must serve in prison. Throughout the United States, there has been much legislative activity related to truth in sentencing. “The Truth in Sentencing movement began in 1984 during the extreme overcrowding crises that plagued America during the 1980s and 1990s” (Timothy S. Carr 2008). There were a few discrepancies between the sentence imposed by the judge and the amount of time the offender served in prison. TIS was put in affect to seek the disagreement. States were encourage by the federal government to increase the use of incarceration. If states decided to increase their incarceration they were funded a federal grant to construct, develop, expand, or improve correctional facilities in order to ensure that prison cell space was available for confinement of offenders. There were federal efforts to motivate prisons to increase their incarceration to earn the federally funded grant through two programs called The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-sentencing (TIS). To receive VOI funding, States needed to give assurance that it will implement policies that guaranteed that violent offender serve majority of their sentences and also guarantee that the time serve was respectively related to the offender’s status and to keep the public safe.
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.
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 ...
There prison population is overpopulated with people just like these. The people in these cases needed help, whether it be employment opportunities, rehabilitation, an alternative to prison, or even a lesser sentence. We have learned that throwing everyone who has a problem in prison and letting them rot behind bars is not the answer. We have only created another problem that our prisons have become overcrowded, and when these offenders finally come out of prison they have a high risk to go right back in. We have to put funding back into communities, society needs to stop spending so much money on sending people to prison, and spend more money trying to keep them out. Society has to put funding back into creating employment opportunities, affordable rehab, and focus on low income communities who need the most help. We need to leave the violent offenders that we are afraid of for prison, and for the people that really need help we can 't put them in jail. Mandatory Minimum sentences are not the answer, this bill needs to be reformed. We have learned that our prisons are filled with people just like Angelos, Echols, and Lockwood who didn’t deserve such harsh sentences and would have benefitted from a judge 's discretion. These people lives would not have been ruined by these sentences if they had better
The first issue that I would like to address is the overcrowding issues in prisons. In my opinion, overcrowding issues are the biggest issues in our correctional system that concerns every citizen. Running a prison required money, resources and manpower, with overcrowding issues, the government would have no choice but to increase the number of correctional facilities, privatized prisons and increasing manpower. According to (Levitt, 1996), “The incarceration rate in the United States has more than tripled in the last two decades. At year-end 1994 the United States prison population exceeded one million. Annual government outlays on prisons are roughly $40 billion per year. The rate of imprisonment in the United States is three to four times greater than most European countries.” (p.1). Overcrowding issues are not only affect prisons but the society as a whole as well. The reason is simply because prison population directly refl...