Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Consequences of three strikes law
Consequences of three strikes law
How is californias three strikes law bad
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Consequences of three strikes law
1. LA Department of Water and Power
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) is the largest municipal utility in the United States. It is serving over four million residents. It was founded in 1902 to supply water and electricity to residents and businesses in Los Angeles and surrounding communities.
2. Missouri Plan
The Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan or Missouri Plan for short is a method of selecting judges. It originated in Missouri in 1940 and several other states have adopted the same policy. According to the Missouri Plan, a non-partisan commission reviews candidates for a judicial vacancy and informs the governor a list of candidates considered best qualified. The governor has sixty days to select a candidate from the list. If not, the commission will make the selection. After one year of service by the judge and during the next general election. The people will vote of that judge to see if the judge will stay or be removed from office. If a majority votes against the judge staying in office, the judge is removed from office. If the majority votes in favor of the judge, then he or she will serve out a full term.
The Missouri plan is a significant policy in Missouri, other states, and also California. California, however, uses a modified version of the Missouri Plan in which the Governor can nominate any California attorney with enough experience. The nominee then undergoes an evaluation by the Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation (JNE) of the State Bar of California, which then forwards a nonbinding evaluation to the Governor.
For superior court positions, the Governor can make an appointment after receiving a report from Judicial Nominees Evaluation. For appellate court positions, the Gove...
... middle of paper ...
...t cost of it. Even though Three Strikes is supposed to be universal throughout the state, it varies by each county as each their “prosecutors enforce the law according to their own principles of proportionality.” (Bowers.) Furthermore, due to the consequence of a third-strike felony, inmates spend at least 25 years in prison. This is a big cost to the state because the cost of an inmate in a California prison was estimated in 1993 to be $ 20,800 per year. Thus, “keeping a third-strike inmate imprisoned for the minimum twenty-five years is a $ 500,000 investment.” (Bowers.)
Three Strikes shows a progress to which California and other states are still adapting. It was made for a good reason against violent crime such as murder and rape. Crimes went down as people heard of the notorious Three Strikes law. Simply knowing that fact, it was a well made policy.
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,
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.
Capital Punishment in the state of California represents the ideals of justice in no way which can justify the great financial and legal burden required to maintain a system that has not actually put any person to death since 2006. It is somewhat of a mystery why California voters allow the process to continue despite having opportunities on fairly recent ballots to discontinue the practice. The current implementation of capital punishment in the state of California spends large amounts of money on the many legal proceedings and processes, while carrying out so few executions of death row prisoners that some would label California as a “De-facto prohibition” state regarding it's practices of capital punishment. Capital Punishment in California fails miserably to represent justice for anyone, and should be abolished.
Congress should pass an amendment that requires a staggered 18-year term limit on the tenure of Supreme Court justices. Under this proposal, each justice would serve for 18 years, and the terms would be established so that there is a vacancy every two years. The vacancies would be on the first and third years of the presidential term. This would allow enough time so the senate would pass this nomination through and the president would not be denied one of his two appointees. The
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.
The purpose of the law was to protect the general public from repeat offenders and effectively “deter” criminals (Jones 2012). The three-strikes law was seen as necessary in states because of a movement referred to as the victims’ movement. The movement brought violent and sex offenders into the public’s attention. As a result, the states created the three-strikes law in order to “silence” the public (Jones 2012). However, the three strikes law doesn’t come without certain consequences, such as over-crowded prison facilities and increase in cost (Jones 2012). The three strike law purpose was to deter crime in the United States; however, research has concluded that the law has not in fact deter crime. For instance, in California the crime rate by 13.8 percent; however, the crime rate declined prior the enactment of the three-strikes law (Jones 2012). The three strikes law also did not display a significant drop in crime rates in populous cities (Jones 2012). One study researched the violent crimes in states that had similar three-strikes laws as those in California and states that did not have a three-strike law. Figure one in the research charted the crime rates in states with a three-strikes law and figure two charted the crime rates in states without a three-strikes law. The two figures verify that the three-strikes law does not contribute to the decline in crime rates because the rate for crime in the
Passing legislation through Congress is a challenge by itself, but for a president acting as chief legislator it can prove to be even harder such as attempting to pass legislation and Congress. For instance, the president of the United States has several significant occupations to conduct while in office, which include the formal roles of Chief of State, Chief Executive, Commander in Chief, Chief Diplomat, and Chief legislator. In modern society, having an understanding of what goes on between the United States Congress and the current president, Barack Obama, acting as chief legislator is crucial to American citizens because although it may not change one’s views of politics, it will aid in having a better understanding of what is going on
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals judges are elected in nonpartisan statewide elections. Mid-term vacancices are filled by appointment. State law requires that nominees are state residents and have practiced law for a minimum of seven years.
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...
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
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)
Americans believe that the more serious a crime is, the longer a person should spend in a prison. In reality it means that a law at discretion can sometimes just set a number of years that a person should spend in the jail, regardless of the situation. The time in the prison is often very long (Randall, Brown, Miller& Fritzler, p.216) because some states have definite sentence or mandatory sentences which leave little room for the judge to decide on the merits of the person. For example, California favors “Three Strikes and You’re Out”(Randall & et al., p.216) stance on the laws which means after third felony crime, a person must spend 25-year-to-life sentence in the prison. They believe that the deprivations of basic needs, isolation from the society, and in extreme cases, death are consequences of committing a crime.