One of the major reasons that prisons have overcrowded is that crime control strategies and legislative changes have meant longer sentencing (Mcshane, 2008). A study in 2006 showed the change in the State and Federal prison population from 1990 to 2005. In 1990 there was a total of 773,124 inmates. In 2005, that number increased to 2,186,230 (Harrison & Beck, 2006). The three- strikes laws has a great impact on the overpopulation of our prison systems because it means more life sentencing with a lesser possibility of parole for most offenders. The three-strike laws are a form of the Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws.
The majority of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws apply to drug crimes. These laws limit the judicial discretion of all judges on drug cases. Individuals’ who are convicted of particular crimes must be punished in accordance to the Mandatory minimums laws which state that at least the minimum sentence is required. This law weakens the Criminal Justice System in many ways. The law prevents judges from fitting the punishment and or sentence according to the individual and the circumstances of the crime committed. Due to the law’s limitation to the discretion of judges, federal and state prisons are overcrowding at the cost of taxpayers.
Before this law, general sentencing of a convicted individual was decided by a judge after the individual has plead guilty or if found guilty in trial. The general sentencing was decided based on the crime and the circumstances, the punishment was intended to be proportional to the crime committed (Champion, 2008). Judges were able to use their discretion on sentencing in accordance to the federal and state sentencing guidelines. However, when the Mandatory Minimum Sente...
... middle of paper ...
...for longer periods of time which eventually leads to overcrowding and overpopulation of inmates in our correctional facilities.
Works Cited
Broderick, V. (1998). Criminal justice: Opposing viewpoints. (p. 114). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.
Champion, D. (2008). Sentencing: Jail and prison overcrowding. (p. 39). Santa Barbra, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Chemerinsky, E. (2010). Mandatory minimum sentencing. (pp. 82-83). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Harrison, P., & Beck, A. J. U.S Department of Justice, (2006). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005 (NCJ213133). Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics website: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pjim05.pdf
Mcshane, M. (2008). Prisons in america. (pp. 239-240). New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.
Walsh, J. (2007). Three strikes laws. (p. 50). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Trachtenberg, B. (2009, February). Incarceration policy strikes out: Exploding prison population compromises the U.S. justice system. ABA Journal, 66.
For a majority of the 20th century, sentencing policies had a minimal effect on social inequality (Western and Pettit 2002). In the early 1970s, this began to change when stricter sentencing policies were enacted (Western and Pettit 2002). Sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three-strikes laws were enacted with the purpose of achieving greater consistency, certainty, and severity in sentencing (National Research Council 2014). Numerous inequalities involving race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status have generated an unprecedented rate of incarceration in America, especially among minority populations (Western and Pettit 2010). With numerous social inequalities currently
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.
Mandatory minimums for controlled substances were first implemented in the 1980s as a countermeasure for the hysteria that surrounded drugs in the era (“A Brief History,” 2014). The common belief was that stiff penalties discouraged people from using drugs and enhanced public safety (“A Brief History,” 2014). That theory, however, was proven false and rather than less illegal drug activity, there are simply more people incarcerated. Studies show that over half of federal prisoners currently incarcerated are there on drug charges, a 116 percent percentage rise since 1970 (Miles, 2014). Mass incarceration is an ever growing issue in the United States and is the result of policies that support the large scale use of imprisonment on
The three-strikes law is defined as “judges sentence offenders with three felony convictions (in some states two or four convictions) to long prison terms, sometimes to life without parole (Cole 2014). The purpose of the three strikes law includes is incapacitation and deterrence (Cole 2014). The purpose of a sentencing and the goals of punishment ideally are meant to correspond to each other. The goals of punishment include retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restorative punishment (Cole 2014). Deterrence is broken down into either specific or general deterrence. General deterrence is defined as punishment of criminals that is intended to be an example to the general public and to discourage the commission of offenses”. Specific deterrence is defined as “punishment inflicted on criminals to discourage them from committing future crimes”. Lastly, incapacitation is defined as “depriving an offender of the ability to commit crimes against society, usually by detaining the offender in prison” (Cole 2014). Two empirical articles research the effectiveness of the three strikes law on crime trends, the impact the law has on population prisons, effect on a prisons budget,
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 1993, over half the states and the federal government enacted some form of “three strike and you’re out” legislation also sometimes called the “habitual offender law” (Marion and Oliver, p.350. 2012). The state of Washington was the first to implement the three strike law; the state of California soon followed with a broader version of the law. The three strike law made mandatory those offenders who have been convicted three times for serious crimes to be sentenced to life in prison. Even though adopted versions of the law vary among states, some states reduce judicial discretion while some states allowed some judicial discretion. For example, the state of California requires twenty-five years to life in prison for any individual
Stephan, J. J. (2005). Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2005. Washington: The Bureau of Justice Statistics.
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.
“Prison Overcrowding: The Problem.” American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC-American Legislative Exchange Council, 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
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...
Doubt is also cast upon the system because some conditions of parole violated constitutional rights; “…the Conservatives abolished the requirement for the Parole Board of Canada to hold an oral hearing following the suspension, termination or revocation of parole or statutory release.” (The Globe and Mail, 2016). This leads to questioning of the fairness of the criminal justice system as whole. This message is implied by Jim Bronskill’s article titled Liberals eye exceptions to mandatory minimum sentences on the Globe and Mail website as well as Kathleen Harris’ article titled Supreme Court strikes down 2 Conservative sentencing reforms on CBC’s website. These two articles discuss the same case of mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses being stuck down by the supreme court of Canada. Both frame the situation in a way that promotes the Liberal perspective. Advocating for the use of parole to its fullest abilities and removing mandatory minimum sentences not just in the context of the drug cases that were specified, but in general. In juxtaposition to that concept the conservatives believe these mandatory minimums “…send a stern warning that some crimes carry stiff penalties.” (Bronskill, 2016). In spite of that, the Liberals recognize that deterrence is
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)
This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as they result in very few positive outcomes for the offender and society, increase recidivism rates, are very expensive, and in many cases are detrimental and unjust. Throughout this essay I will discuss two main cases that represent an unjust sentencing outcome due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I will stress how it should be the discretion of the judge to individualize the sentences based on the offender’s mitigating factors, aggravating factors and background. Leroy Smickle is the first case discussed through the essay, which ended with the judge striking down the mandatory minimum sentences in Ontario due to the possession of a loaded gun. Robert Latimer was also a highly controversial Canadian case about a father who killed his mentally disabled daughter out of compassion to end her severe suffering. I will be using many academic articles throughout this essay to give empirical support to the overall argument.
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.