It is difficult to determine whether the three-strikes law in Washington is an effective form of legislation. In 1993, Washington was the first state in the nation to adopt three-strikes legislation which imposed a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for persons convicted for a third specific violent felony. The action was fueled by the highly publicized death of Diane Ballasiotes, who was raped and murdered by a convicted rapist who had been released from prison. Voters, who were overcome with emotion over the atrocious acts committed by a released felon, passed the bill by a three to one margin. California followed suit, passing similar legislation in 1994. By 1999, 26 states in the nation had approved comparable laws. Although similar there are variations in the specifics, such as which offenses qualify as a strike and the number of strikes needed to be "out". In twenty states three strikes are required. In one state, a mandatory life is imposed after the second strike.
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 Canadian justice system is organized into the police, courts and prisons (Goff, 2013, p.295). When a crime is committed it is up to the justice system to insure that justice is served.
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,
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 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.
The first problem the proposal is its principle of removing judicial discretion, severely hindering a judge's ability to make the punishment fit the crime. One man in Washington is faced with life in prison if convicted of his third felony: stealing $120 from a sandwich shop by putting his finger in his pocket and pretending to have a gun. His prior two convictions were for similar crimes. While it is certainly true that some incorrigible felons deserve life in prison, it is patently unfair to create a sweeping standard that would force the courts to sentence offenders to life imprisonment for relatively minor crimes. The three-strikes law gives a judge no discretion in cases like that of the Washington man, or Michael.
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
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
In fact, the law had the opposite effect. One study, conducted by Marvell and Moody, showed evidence that criminals who are eligible for life in prison due to a third strike are more likely to commit a third offense. Additionally, Kovandzic, Sloan, and Vieraitis presented evidence on homicide rates which increased, subsequent to the passage of the three strike law, from 1980 to 1999 (Marion et al., 2012). The basic thought from these studies was if a criminal was facing life in prison with a third strike; this individual has nothing to lose by murdering a police officer in order to evade arrest. Therefore, the three strike law might have worsened the problem of violent crime and vice deterred it (Marion et al., 2012).
... or minor vehicle offenses. This programs proved to be very effective in other countries like England due to the fact that they utilize this program more as an alternative to prison rather than just a condition. For that, it is hard to say whether it is effective in the United States in its current state. It might just be a problem of implementation.
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...
...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.
This research seeks to establish whether making the penalty stiff will work in repeating repeat and future offenders. This research is tied to a larger theory that harsh punishments act as a deterrent to crime. They work by making people not commit a crime for fear of the punishment that is going to follow. This research is applicable across many facets of crimes that are rampant. It is going to help identify whether enacting stricter laws and enforcing them helps in reducing the relate...
In 1968, Herbert Packer was a Stanford University law professor who constructed two models of criminal process, due process and crime control. The due process model was Packer’s view that criminal defendants should be presumed innocent, courts must protect suspects’ rights, and there must be come limits placed on police powers. The crime control model is a model that emphasizes law and order and argues that every effort must be made to suppress crime, and to try, convict, and incarcerate offenders. Packer’s crime control model suggested that most cases ended in guilty please or withdrawals. In contrast, his due process model suggested that cases that go to trail and are appealed were the most influential. The due process and crime control model differentiate in
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 ...
The third way to reduce criminality and delinquency amongst the black youth is to educate them about the system itself. When our youth do not understand their rights within the system, it is so easy to have them sucked up into the criminal justice system and a statistic. African Americans have been wrongly convicted of crimes since slavery. It got even worse after slavery, during the reconstruction years. Many African Americans were lynched for crimes that they did not commit. Today, there are many innocent African American men who are behind bars for crimes that had nothing to do with them. Racially disparate treatment has permeated the United States criminal justice system throughout history. During the Jim Crow era, trials consisted of racial