The purpose of the three-strike laws was to decrease the repeated offenders of doing the same crime over and over and to give these individuals longer prison time through the use of the mandatory minimum sentencing. Washington, California, and Florida all passed this three-strike law to ensure that these criminals were getting what they deserved and to stop the repeated act. However, all three states differ in different ways on how they enforce their three-strike models. According to Schmalleger & Smykla (2001), In Washington, all three strikes must be felonies and listed in the legislation. Some of the other states have a two-strike law but unfortunately, Washington doesn’t enforce a two-strike law. Washington three-strike law requires a life term without the possibility of parole for a person convicted for the third time of any of the “most serious crimes.” Meanwhile, in California, according to the three-strike law, the first two convictions must be from the state’s list of “strikeable” crimes. Any following felony can count as the three-strike (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2001). California also have a two-strike law, where the person can be sentenced to twice of he or she time, because of the person convicted of a …show more content…
In these states the three-strike laws are very affective. They take the pressure off the society to reform these persons that are affected by the three-strike models. These societies feel as though since these persons want to keep being convicted of the same felonies two or more times then they should be punishment because they don’t want to do better for themselves (Beres & Griffith, 1998). These three-strike models affect the inmates in a negative way. For example, in the state of California the law was passed and imposed a life sentence to just about any crime. More than half of the inmates are incarcerated on some nonviolent
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.
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,
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.
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 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)
Some unusual scenarios have come about due to these laws, particularly in California; some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life for such petty crimes as shoplifting golf clubs or stealing a slice of pizza from a child on the beach or a double sentence of 50 years to life for stealing nine video tapes from two different stores while child molesters, rapists and murderers serve only a few years. As a result of some of these scenarios the three strikes sentences have prompted harsh criticism not only within the United States but from outside the country as well (Campbell). Many questions have now arisen concerning the “three strikes” laws such as alternatives to incarceration for non-heinous crimes, what would happen if the state got rid of “strikes” and guaranteed that those convicted of a serious crime serve their full sentence? It is imperative to compare the benefits and the costs and the alternatives to incarceration when de...
The three-strikes law continues to arouse controversial issues in the United States. In Oklahoma, the three-strikes law is on the path of reformation. The three-strikes law states that offenders third drug-related conviction results in a life sentence (Oklahoman Editorial Board 2015). The article, “Oklahoma three-strikes law an example of why more corrections reform is needed” discusses the financial benefits and of reforming this certain law and the increase discretion given to judges (Oklahoman Editorial Board 2015). One issue of the three-strikes law is that the law puts nonviolent offenders in prison for life in a disproportionate ratio to violent offenders. For instance, out of 54 female and male inmates only three committed a violent
Between 1993 and 1995, twenty four states enacted three strikes sentencing policy which calls for much harsher sentencing of repeat felony offender. Most sentences for these repeat offender called for a minimum punishment of a life sentence with possibility of release until twenty five years have been served (1 Marvell, Moody 89). These laws where created to target and punish what lawmakers believed to be the small percentage of criminals that where committing the majority of serious crimes such as murder, rape, kidnaping, aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and sexual abuse.
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
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.
In 2004, “The Effect of Three- Strikes Legislation on Serious Crime in California” study showed the lack-lustering effect of the Three-Strikes Law. The study displayed that the Three- Strikes Law didn’t have a positive impact on reducing crime. Instead, the policy just increased the incarceration
...cross the United States; however, there are times when these sentences are not appropriate. Laws such as the “three-strikes-you’re-out” law and Title 18 U.S.C. 924(c) often create sentences that can be overbearing and extremely harsh. Therefore, judges and prosecutors have found ways in order to “get around” imposing mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Although this is usually considered to be a positive practice, it has also been known to create more issues within the criminal justice system. Thus, there is a need for further research to be completed with regards to the issues surrounding mandatory minimum sentencing laws and how they disallow for discretion within cases involving different circumstances. Applying ethical principles such as formalism can be useful; however, it does not completely solve the problem of unjustified mandatory minimum sentences.
Mass incarceration has caused the prison’s populations to increase dramatically. The reason for this increase in population is because of the sentencing policies that put a lot of men and women in prison for an unjust amount of time. The prison population has be caused by periods of high crime rates, by the medias assembly line approach to the production of news stories that bend the truth of the crimes, and by political figures preying on citizens fear. For example, this fear can be seen in “Richard Nixon’s famous campaign call for “law and order” spoke to those fears, hostilities, and racist underpinnings” (Mauer pg. 52). This causes law enforcement to focus on crimes that involve violent crimes/offenders. Such as, gang members, drive by shootings, drug dealers, and serial killers. Instead of our law agencies focusing their attention on the fundamental causes of crime. Such as, why these crimes are committed, the family, and preventive services. These agencies choose to fight crime by establishing a “War On Drugs” and with “Get Tough” sentencing policies. These policies include “three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and juvenile waives laws which allows kids to be trialed as adults.
... or appointed to their positions because of our supposed confidence in their impartial views when it comes to dispensing justice. However, the trend in the past few years has been for legislatures to minimize the discretion given to judges at sentencing, partly in an attempt to treat similar defendants more similarly and to avoid the effect of rogue judges. These policies have effectively taken some of the important discretion away from the very people who are supposed to be the most intimately involved in our due process. Legislators are too far removed from this process to be mandating broad strokes of punishment without considering each and every case on its merits. If we want to improve our criminal justice system and develop a long-term strategy for addressing the overcrowding in our prisons, then both "3 Strikes Laws" and Mandatory Minimums must be changed.
Complete silence was required in the prisons. The confinement’s goal was to create a need for work strong enough that the deprivation of labor was worse than the punishment of prison (Lowenstein).The early prisons eliminated other types of punishment like execution. This system became the center for criminal reform in the late 1700s. In these days of the system, it was effective. No discharged convicts returned to the penitentiary, now known as a jail. However, a lot has changed in the past years. The United States currently has the largest number of imprisoned people in the world. The correctional population has grown by 700 percent since the 1700s, creating the epidemic of mass incarceration. This increase is believed to be the result of the required sentences correlated with the increase of crime associated with drugs (Shigekawa). About one-third of the 1.5 million Americans arrested for drugs spend time in prison. It is also believed that the increase of prisoners is caused by the new sentencing guidelines. These guidelines decrease the judge’s influence on if someone should be convicted or not and increased the length of sentences. The three-strikes law causes nonviolent repeat offenders to serve long