America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, at 100 prisoners for every 100,000 citizens. Our judicial system is supposed to interpret the laws and constitution, providing fair punishment for criminals, but it often falls short. Judges are forced to uphold unjust policies, and some allow their personal bias to influence sentencing. This results in overcrowded and underfunded prisons with an extreme racial disparity.
One such policy which causes overcrowding and a disparity in prisons is the Three Strikes Law. The Three Strikes Law was created under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, requiring a life sentence for felons convicted of a serious and violent felony, with at least two prior criminal convictions, whereas at least one of the former felonies must have also been serious or
…show more content…
Unlike sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimums provide no leeway for judges to interpret the law and provide an appropriate sentence. Prosecutors can advance professionally by getting defendants convicted, which they often do at the expense of true justice. This results in unfair sentencing under mandatory minimums; the prosecutor should push for the most fitting sentence, not the longest (Bains and Gertner). Mandatory minimums are supposed to remove judicial bias from the equation and fix the disparity in imprisonment, but judges are still biased in deciding what the crime is classified as.
Mandatory minimums also cost the public exorbitant amounts, while education and public health suffer. “The federal prison budget has risen from less than $3.7 billion in 2000 and less than $5 billion in 2006 to about $7 billion in 2017. This exceeds the $5.5 billion allocated by the federal government to care for all the homeless people in the U.S” (James). Maintenance of federal prisons is quarter of the Department of Justice budget (Bains and
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,
The chance of reform is completely removed. Mimi Silbert, president of the Delancey Street Foundation, a half- way home for prisoners, tells the story of Albert who was sent to San Quentin Prison at age 19; by then he had committed 27 armed robberies. Under three-strikes-and-you're-out, he would still be in prison. Released at age 36, he is a caring father, works as a plumber and a substitute teacher, and has led a drug-free, crime-free life. A three-strikes law would deny this chance to Albert and to many others like him. Felons are capable of reform, but this law would deny them that chance.(Silbert)
The senseless and irrational analysis behind these mandatory minimum sentencing laws that left judges with no choice but to hand out deva...
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
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.
Mandatory sentencing refers to the practice of parliament setting a fixed penalty for the commission of a criminal offence. Mandatory sentencing was mainly introduced in Australia to: prevent crime, to incapacitate the offenders, to deter offenders so they don’t offend again, to create a stronger retribution and to eliminate inconsistency. There is a firm belief that the imposition of Mandatory sentencing for an offence will have a deterrent effect on the individual and will send a forcible message to the offenders. Those in favour argue that it will bring consistency in sentencing and conciliate public concern about crime and punishment.
The criminal justice system has been in place the United States for centuries. The system has endured many changes throughout the ages. The need for a checks and balances system has been a priority for just as long. Federal sentencing guidelines were created to help create equal punishments among offenders. Judges are given the power of sentencing and they are not immune to opinions, bias, and feelings. These guidelines are set in place to allow the judge to keep their power but keep them within a control group of equality. Although there are a lot of pros to sentencing guidelines there are also a lot of cons. Research has shown that sentencing guidelines have allowed the power to shift from judges to prosecutors and led to sentencing disparity based on sex, race, and social class.
“It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones” (Nelson Mandela, 1994). The United States of America has more people behind bars than any other country on the planet. The prisons are at over double capacity. It cost a lot of money to house prisoners each year. A large number of the prisoners are there because of drug related offenses. There are prisoners who have been sent to prison for life for marijuana related drug offenses. Many prisoners have been exonerated after spending many years behind bars due to the corruption in our legal system. 32 States in United States of America still execute prisoners even though there is no evidence to suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent. Prison reform is needed in America starting at the legal system and then ending the death penalty.
Saint Augustine once said, “In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?” The criminal justice system in America has been documented time and time again as being a legal system that borders on the surreal. We as Americans live in a country where the Justice Department has failed to collect on $7 billion in fines and restitutions from thirty-seven thousand corporations and individuals convicted of white collar crime. That same Justice Department while instead spending more than 350% since 1980 on total incarceration expenditures totaling $80 billion dollars. America has become a place where a 71-year-old man will get 150 years in prison for stealing $68 billion dollars from nearly everyone in the country and a five-time petty offender in Dallas was sentenced to one thousand years in prison for stealing $73.
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...
In my eyes there are three main questions to be asked about mandatory minimum sentencing: For one, are mandatory minimum sentences fair? I do not mean this in the “Johnny got two cookies and I only got one” type of fair. When referring to fair, I am asking if we are giving our country’s judicial system the freedom to exercise all of their privileges and powers. Also, if compared to less heinous and more heinous crimes, are the mandatory minimums surrounding drug offences unjustly strict?
The roots of this law actually come from Washington State. This state was the first state to actually pass a no-nonsense three strikes policy. The first movement toward this began in the summer of 1991 as research project for the Washington Institute for Policy Studies. The main goals for the project were to examine and review the current practices of sentencing career criminals, and to make recommendations as needed. The researchers wanted anyone who as convicted of a third serious felony to be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. They wanted there to be no sympathy whatsoever for the criminals. This law was not enforced there until December 1993. (Lacourse, p.1)
America locks up five times more of its' population than any other nation in the world. Due to prison overcrowding, prisoners are currently sleeping on floors, in tents, in converted broom closets and gymnasiums, or even in double or triple bunks in cells, which were designed for one inmate. Why is this happening? The U.S. Judicial System has become so succumbed to the ideal that Imprisonment is the most visibly form of punishment. The current structure of this system is failing terribly. To take people, strip them of their possessions and privacy, expose them to violence on a daily basis, restrict their quality of life to a 5x7ft cell, and deprive them of any meaning to live. This scenario is a standard form of punishment for violent offenders, although not suitable for nonviolent offenders.
It is hard for us to imagine America being great again when a large amount of our population is in prison. The prison system in America is an increasing problem. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics 2,220,300 adults were incarcerated in US federal and state prisons, and county jails in 2013 – about 0.91% of adults (1 in 110) in the U.S. resident population. Additionally, 4,751,400 adults in 2013 (1 in 51) were on probation or on parole(BOP.gov). America is harboring thousands of people for extended periods of time and paying tax dollars to fund prisons, their staff, and the prisoner.