In 1990, the federal justice system of the United States enacted a controversial policy that would become known as the Three Strikes law. Under this policy, courts are required to apply mandatory incarceration – often for periods extended a great deal further than would be found in similar situations of incarceration – for those convicted of a serious criminal offense on three separate occasions. The theory behind the implementation of the Three Strikes law is that pervasive criminal activity is the sign of chronic criminality that normal methods of correction are ineffective in dealing with. Thus, these pervasive criminals are jailed for more lengthy periods as a way to uphold public safety. Naturally, critics of the Three Strikes law are vocal in their dissent. Ultimately, they argue, these laws are incapable of considering issues of circumstantial justice in which a judge can uniquely consider certain cases on internal merit rather than being directed and, in many ways, involuntarily compelled by external forces. This flexibility for judges, it is argued, is necessary as not all repeat offenders threaten public safety inherently. Further, many point that these policies only serve to perpetuate a criminal’s offenses due to the highly politicized nature of the Three Strikes law. Often in an attempt to appear harder on crime, politicians will react to high-profile cases with a feeling of extreme prejudice, nearly to Draconian practices. As a result more minor cases are afflicted with harsher punishments as a result of this same “hard on crime” stance. Failure to incorporate or even consider aspects of rehabilitation perpetuate a cycle of crime in which the punishment no longer fits the deed.
It is important to consider t...
... middle of paper ...
...than punishing the natural byproduct of this situation – crime – we should look to mitigate the factors that affected the individual in the first place. Enacting policies that force criminals convicted of multiple crimes to become productive members of society by equipping them with the tools necessary to further their education and receive additional job training will help to keep the repeat offenders from prison and help the general public by reducing the costs of prisons and by incorporating a wider array of productive contributors, and would help lessen the over-crowdedness of state penitentiaries and allow them to be filled with only violent offenders. These three steps are important advances that must be made to reform the Three Strikes law so as to better serve our criminal justice system, the inmates wrongly impacted by the law, and the citizenry at large.
The United States criminal justice system is an ever-changing system that is based on the opinions and ideas of the public. Many of the policies today were established in direct response to polarizing events and generational shifts in ideology. In order to maintain public safety and punish those who break these laws, law enforcement officers arrest offenders and a judge or a group of the law offender’s peers judge their innocence. If found guilty, these individuals are sentenced for a predetermined amount of time in prison and are eventually, evaluated for early release through probation. While on probation, the individual is reintegrated into their community, with restrict limitations that are established for safety. In theory, this system
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.
In California in 2000, Gary Ewing stole three golf clubs worth $399 each. The crime itself was not egregious; however, Ewing was on parole for a prior offense and was convicted for felony grand theft (“Ewing v. California”, n.d.). Under the three strikes law, it was discovered that he had previously been convicted for four serious or violent felonies. The court, at their discretion, had the option to reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor. Instead, it sentenced Ewing to 25 years to life in prison which felt was “grossly disproportionate” under the Eighth Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The State Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling as did the United States Supreme Court who ruled that the 25 year to life sentence was
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.
...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.
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.
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,
Most states had stiffer criminal sanction in place before the three strikes law came into play for repeat offender and most of these criminals would serve lengthy terms for their repeat offenses anyways, however the discretion to impose those lengthy prison sentences was at the hands of the judge time (1 Marvell, Moody 90). One must also consider that not all criminals are even aware that the three strike law exist much less are aware of what its implications would be on their repeat offenses. An...
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...
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
Mandatory minimums and three strike laws, are they really the answer to the crime problem America has faced for years? Many would say yes, including me, as long as it is for a violent crime such as murder, rape or arson; some feel that even theft, drug trafficking or possession, and burglary are all worthy of the 25-to-life sentence that can be carried under the mandatory minimums for three strike laws. A three-strike law is a law that states that you will be sentenced to 25years to life for three violations and convictions of a law. Where the three strike laws have mandatory sentences, mandatory sentences aren’t always tied in with three strike laws. A mandatory minimum is a law that requires someone serve a predetermined amount of time in prison for specific offenses and the only way to have it reduced is by assisting the authorities in further convictions of others. In California a man was sentenced under the three strike laws for theft because he had two prior convictions. This man had been convicted of robbery and attempted robbery; therefore the slice of pizza he stole got him 25 years to life in prison (Lungren Trumpets ‘Three Strikes’ Law). Yes now, in California, you can be sent to prison for life if you take a slice of pizza from someone.
The three strikes laws is a legal system that many states have adapted that specifies if one commits three felonies then they automatically receive a life sentence (Cite 19). While they vary from state to state, currently 28 states have the three strikes law in place. The problem is the three felonies do not have to be violent. For instance, someone who may have stolen a felony amount of goods, forged government paperwork, and got caught with a large amount of drugs could be facing life in prison for their three separate felonies (“Three Strikes”). While this law was created to keep people who really deserve to spend their life in prison locked up, it often affects other non-violent criminals who have made some bad decisions. The statistics are staggering as well. Currently out of all the people who are in incardinated under the three strikes law, less than half are in for violent crimes (“Three Strikes”). America needs to seriously reevaluate their three strikes law. It does not necessarily have to be taken completely off the law book, as it is does have it place for some offenders. Yet it needs to be heavily modified in order to have the ability to free up more cells for people who really deserve to be
Today, half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent crimes. Over half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug crimes. Mass incarceration seems to be extremely expensive and a waste of money. It is believed to be a massive failure. Increased punishments and jailing have been declining in effectiveness for more than thirty years. Violent crime rates fell by more than fifty percent between 1991 and 2013, while property crime declined by forty-six percent, according to FBI statistics. Yet between 1990 and 2009, the prison population in the U.S. more than doubled, jumping from 771,243 to over 1.6 million (Nadia Prupis, 2015). While jailing may have at first had a positive result on the crime rate, it has reached a point of being less and less worth all the effort. Income growth and an aging population each had a greater effect on the decline in national crime rates than jailing. Mass incarceration and tough-on-crime policies have had huge social and money-related consequences--from its eighty billion dollars per-year price tag to its many societal costs, including an increased risk of recidivism due to barbarous conditions in prison and a lack of after-release reintegration opportunities. The government needs to rethink their strategy and their policies that are bad
The proliferation of harsh mandatory sentencing policies has inhibited the ability of courts to sentence offenders in a way that permits a more "problem solving" approach to crime, as we can see in the most recent community policing and drug court movements today. By eliminating any consideration of the factors contributing to crime and a range of responses, such sentencing policies fail to provide justice for all. Given the cutbacks in prison programming and rates of recidivism, in some cases over 60% or more, the increased use of incarceration in many respects represents a commitment to policies that are both ineffective and unfair. I believe in equal, fair and measured punishment for all. I don't advocate a soft, or a hard approach to punishment. But we must take a more pragmatic look at what the consequences of our actions are when we close our e...
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 ...