Proposition 184 in California
Last year in California voters approved a controversial ballot
initiative. Proposition 184, also known as the three strikes and you're out
law, was passed on November 9, 1994. Under this new legislation repeat
offenders, upon committing their third felony offense, will be sentenced to a
mandatory twenty-five years to life in prison(California 667). The initiative
passed by a landslide, with 76% of the voters in favor of it. The State Senate
soon after voted the bill into law, with only seven members voting against it.
The three strikes initiative stemmed from the killing of Polly Klass by Richard
Allen Davis, a convicted felon. The killing outraged the entire state but what
enraged people even more was that Davis had been in and out of prison his whole
life and was still free to kill again. Soon people began calling for laws that
would put repeat violent offenders behind bars for life. The premise of the
new laws became an easy issue for politicians to back. To oppose such
legislation seemed to be political suicide, so most politicians backed the
initiative. Although many civil liberties groups opposed such mandatory
sentencing measures there was little they could in the face of tremendous voter
approval. Many voters did not realize that this bill could put potentially
incarcerate people for ludicrous amounts after the commission of a minor
offense. Even more voters did not realize the cost of implementing such a bill.
Now that this new legislation has been in effect for a year and the
tremendous negative effects it have become obvious we must repeal it.
One of the issues that must be considered when imposing mandatory
sentencing is the increased cost of incarceration. In the state of California
it costs $20,000 per year to incarcerate an inmate under normal
circumstances(Cost 1). This amount of money could put one person through a
state college for two or three years. According to Beth Carter the three
strikes law has placed 1,300 people in prison for a third strike offense and
14,000 people in prison on a second strike offense(1). The current recidivism
rate in California is 70%(2), which means that out of those 14,000 people that
almost 10,000 will be back in prison for a third strike. To imprison those
1,300 third strike offenders for the mandatory minimum of twenty-five years
will cost the state of California $812,500,000. To support these inmates for
longer periods of time we will have to increase the amount of money going to
sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison. The case against him was largely
It was vetoed repeatedly by the democratic governor until a republican was elected in 1987 (Kopel).
before he was even convicted of the crime! Mr. Stevenson spends so much time advocating for
whims of state legislatures. Laws that prohibit felons from voting are a punishment above and
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
SENATE VOTES 212-298, 393-493, reported by Congressional Quarterly, Washington D.C. September 2, thru October 14, 1995, 2680-3162.
National Conference of State Legislatures. Wendy Underhill , 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
The bill was debated and negotiated for nearly six years in Congress, and finally passed amid unusual circumstances. Several times in the legislative process the bill had appeared to have failed, but each time was saved when a couple of Congressmen and Senators switched positions on the bill. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives early on June 25, 2003 as H.R. 1, sponsored by Speak Dennis Hastert. All that day and the next the bill was debated, and it was apparent that the bill would be very divisive. In June 27, a floor vote was taken. After the initial electronic vote, the count stood at 214 yeses an...
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.
it is a matter of how we are able to live over the next couple of
on August 3, 1996 (Detailed Legislative History). It has been said the bill would have died in the
...ed with a vote of 63-34. It was then sent to the House on October 25, 1999. On April 5, 2000, H.R. 3660 was passed with a vote of 287-141, then there was a motion to reconsider. It was then receive by the Senate on April 6, 2000.
have not come about without criticism on constitutional grounds. Any criticism should take into account the extraordinary recidivism rates found only in the criminal class of the s...
June 14, 1995 with a vote of 84-16. The Leahy bill does not pass, but is
Just passing in the past couple weeks Nebraska and California have decided to keep the death penalty in check. “After lawmakers in Nebraska voted to abolish capital punishment there, Ricketts vetoed it, prompting the legislature to take another vote and override him. Cherry-red Nebraska then became the 19th state in the