More handpicked essays just for you.
What is the problem with the three strikes law
Critical analysis on three strikes law
Problems with the three strikes law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What is the problem with the three strikes law
It has become the subject of much debate, it has stirred a lot of emotions, but what do we really know about it? What am I talking about? The three-strikes law, of course.
To begin with, in my opinion a main advantage of implementation this law would be reducing crime and arrest rates as it should be the best deterrent. On the other hand, this law can multiply the number of criminals in an already overcrowded prison system which makes it even more expensive. Despite this downside, I strongly believe that this law would keep persistent offenders off the streets for longer periods which should prevent them from harming society and committing additional crimes. However, a main disadvantage focuses on disabling the courts and the judge from being
It was intended to punish serious or violent repeat offenders so alternatives would apply to non-violent, petty offenders. The first alternative is rather simple in that the law could allow prosecutors to consider whether a defendant’s “background, character and prospects” placed him or her outside of the “spirit” of three strikes (Bazelon, 2010). This plea for leniency has been used in appeals to prevent minor offenders from life sentences. It could also be used in cases with mitigating circumstances involving the offender such as mental retardation, child abuse, or mental illness (Bazelon, 2010). Norman Williams was a homeless drug addict in 1997 when he was sentenced to life under the law after he stole a floor jack. A few years later his case was reviewed during which it was discovered that Williams grew up with a mom who was a binge drinker who pimped him and his brothers out to men that she knew. As a result of the abuse, Williams became a cocaine addict as an adult living on the streets of Long Beach, California. This information was had not been introduced at trial but after much effort he was released in 2009 (Bazelon,
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.
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 best solution to an increase in crime rates in New Mexico would be to implement a stronger three strikes law because putting the repeat offenders behind bars for committing the violent crime that is dangerous to the society, which is one step closer to improving the problem. The tougher three strikes law would have the mandatory longer prison time for the criminals which is definitely needed to reform the three strikes law in New Mexico. However, if we do not happen to make the three strikes law tougher in New Mexico, we will significantly see an increase in the violent crime rate in the future which might become difficult to control later as it will become so wider than before. I believe it is still better to make the law harsher because
A significant benefit of ISP is the cost effectiveness. On average it cost about $60 a day to house a person in prison unlike the only $8 dollars to supervise a criminal in the community. (njpt.uscourts.gov) I like how there are different “levels” of ISPs, grouping the criminals with the level of supervision needed for him or her. It gives the participant (of ISP’s) responsibility but still having to keep up priorities that could have may happened in jail as well: (1) participating in treatment programming, breathalyzer tests, random urinalysis tests, unannounced home visits, working, and paying bills and court ordered obligations. It is also an effective form due to the strict program that has to be followed; along, that it is offered in the juvenile court system. I also think community service would be another effective form of intermediate sanctions. This helps hold offenders accountable for the harm they have caused to the community and help improve the quality of public environments, business, etc in a community. Community service also provides offenders an opportunity of skill development and interaction with positive role
Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against mandatory sentencing. I will show the reasons for this topic, as well as give you my personal brief on which I support.
Mandatory minimum sentencing is the practice of requiring a predetermined prison sentence for certain crimes. The most notable mandatory minimums are the ones implemented in the 70’s and 80’s, hoping to combat the rising drug problem. Mandatory minimum sentencing has existed in the United States nearly since its very birth, with the first mandatory minimums being put into place around 1790. Recently, as the marijuana laws of many states have scaled back in severity, the issue of mandatory minimums has caused controversy in the US. There are two distinct sides to the argument surrounding mandatory minimum sentencing. One group believes we have a moral obligation to our country requiring us to do no less than lock up anyone with illegal drugs
I. Alternatives to incarceration give courts more options. For example, it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to slamming people in jail just because they were caught using drugs. So much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related--crime that would largely disappear if the massive profits brought on by drug criminalization were eliminated. You can reduce drug usage more efficiently, and at a lower cost, through treatment than through law enforcement.
More are sentencing options are great because just like every person is different, so is the crime. Prison may not always be the most effective response for people, so If courts have options other than incarceration, “they can better tailor a cost-effective sentence that fits the offender and the crime, protects the public, and provides rehabilitation” (FAMM, 2011). Findings have also proven that alternative saves taxpayers money. “It costs over $28,000 to keep one person in federal prison for one year1 (some states’ prison costs are much higher). Alternatives to incarceration are cheaper, help prevent prison and jail overcrowding, and save taxpayers millions” (FAMM, 2011, para. 3). Lastly, alternatives protect the public by reducing crime. There is a 40% chance that all people leaving prison will go back within three years of their release (FAMM, 2011). “Alternatives to prison such as drug and mental health courts are proven to confront the underlying causes of crime (i.e., drug addiction and mental illness) and help prevent offenders from committing new crimes” (FAMM, 2011, para.
...litation in the community. The disadvantage of this would be that not all the programs are available to certain inmates. Also, the disadvantage for the rehabilitations in the community is that the offender cannot be located. They are at risk of re-offending.
Since the 13 colonies were first established in America, the death penalty has been the main form of capital punishment as a firmly deep-rooted institution in the United States. Today, one of the most debated issues in the criminal justice system is the issue of capital punishment. While receiving disapproving viewpoints as those who oppose the death penalty find moral fault in capital punishment, the death penalty has taken a very different course in America while continuing to further advancements in the justice system since the start of the new millennium. While eliminating overcrowding in state jails, the death penalty has managed to save tax payers dollars as well as deteriorate crime and apprehend criminals.
is ineffective at bringing crime rates down. Some also believe that it gives the government the
This model of corrections had an excellent goal in helping criminals to recover from whatever caused them to commit crimes. The positive side of this program is twofold. First the program would help the ill to recover and secondly it was supposed to stop the criminal from re-offending. Although this program seems to be a great idea there are also downfalls to the idea. The main problem with this program is how you would evaluate the persons illness. For example, if someone was caught stealing or selling drugs, how do you determine that they have some sort of fixable problem or illness? Maybe they were just hungry or wanted money and there is nothing wrong with them that can be treated psychologically. Another example of a problem with this system is how woul...