How three strikes law is effecting people in New Mexico? Three Strikes law is one of the most modernization laws in the criminal justice system of the United States, where it has been created in the efforts to reduce and prevent crimes in the states especially for require sentencing laws for repeat criminal offenders. In 2003, there are more than half of the states in the United States has adopted the three strikes law; in addition, they are raised when criminals have committed their third felonies. Therefore, these laws has execute a harsher penalty of a minimum of 25 years of life sentence for criminals who have committed a crime for the third time even though their crimes are not that evil. There were many arguments were raised when many …show more content…
Many people in New Mexico arguing that violent crimes are increasing very rapidly on the streets, to reduce the crime on the streets, government in New Mexico needs to strengthen their three strikes law. Governor Martinez in New Mexico claiming that the system in the state is very weak as the government is infrequently using three strikes law to punish the mandatory life sentences of life in prison. Those who are being punished they have the possibility of being discharge where many of the offenders do not get a chance to learn their lessons. He states that “New Mexico’s three strikes law is so narrow that no inmate is currently serving a life sentence under it” (Press). There are many criminals out there on the streets who keep committing crimes because they think it is okay to do it since there is no one who can punished them even if they do get punished they will be bail out of the prison in a few days, which caused the violent crimes to be increased on the streets of New Mexico. On the other hand, Bozelko debates even after the three strikes law will be strengthen, it will still not make the New Mexico state safer;
Kimber Reynolds was eighteen at the time and came home to Fresno to be a bridesmaid. She was leaving a restaurant when two men on motorcycles attempted to snatch her purse (Laird, 2013). She resisted and one of the men shot her resulting in her death twenty six hours later. Her family discovered that both men had prior offenses mostly for drugs and petty theft. Kimber’s dad, Mike Reynolds, drafted a “three strikes and you’re out” law for punishing repeat offenders. After advertising it as a way to keep violent repeat offenders off the street, California passed the law two years later (Laird, 2013). The law doubled prison time for a second felony if the offender had a prior serious or violent felony. If an offender had two prior serious or violent felonies, it would mean 25 years to life for “third strike” even though the third felony did not have to be serious or violent. As a result, people in California were sentenced to life in prison for petty theft and drug possession (Laird,
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.
the "Three Strikes" law. There has been a swift and dramatic impact on crime since the enactment of the "Three Strikes" law. The crime rate has dropped more than 30%. But
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.
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.
Although stricter prison sentences can have some effect on crime rate, some people speculate that it can also be defective. In the article entitled “Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences Waste Resource” the author of the article states, “There are nearly 12,000 people in New York’s ...
The purpose of the law was to protect the general public from repeat offenders and effectively “deter” criminals (Jones 2012). The three-strikes law was seen as necessary in states because of a movement referred to as the victims’ movement. The movement brought violent and sex offenders into the public’s attention. As a result, the states created the three-strikes law in order to “silence” the public (Jones 2012). However, the three strikes law doesn’t come without certain consequences, such as over-crowded prison facilities and increase in cost (Jones 2012). The three strike law purpose was to deter crime in the United States; however, research has concluded that the law has not in fact deter crime. For instance, in California the crime rate by 13.8 percent; however, the crime rate declined prior the enactment of the three-strikes law (Jones 2012). The three strikes law also did not display a significant drop in crime rates in populous cities (Jones 2012). One study researched the violent crimes in states that had similar three-strikes laws as those in California and states that did not have a three-strike law. Figure one in the research charted the crime rates in states with a three-strikes law and figure two charted the crime rates in states without a three-strikes law. The two figures verify that the three-strikes law does not contribute to the decline in crime rates because the rate for crime in the
The majority of prisoners incarcerated in America are non-violent offenders. This is due mainly to mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which is a method of prosecution that gives offenders a set amount of prison time for a crime they commit if it falls under one of these laws, regardless of their individual case analysis. These laws began in the 1980s, when the use of illegal drugs was hitting an all time high (Conyers 379). The United States began enacting legislature that called for minimum sentencing in an effort to combat this “war on drugs.” Many of these laws give long sentences to first time offenders (Conyers). The “three strikes” law states that people convicted of drug crimes on three separate occasions can face life in prison. These laws were passed for political gain, as the American public was swept into the belief that the laws would do nothing other than help end the rampant drug crimes in the country. The laws are still in effect today, and have not succeeded to discourage people from using drugs. Almost fifty percent...
3: Kovandzic, Tomislav V., Sloan,John J., I.,II, and Lynne M. Vieraitis. ""STRIKING OUT" AS CRIME REDUCTION POLICY: THE IMPACT OF "THREE STRIKES" LAWS ON CRIME RATES IN U.S. CITIES." Justice Quarterly : JQ 21.2 (2004): 207-39. ProQuest. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.
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).
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
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.
Today there is a growing awareness of repeat offenders among society in reference to crime. Starting around 1980 there was noticeable increase in crime rates in the U.S.. In many of these cases it was noted that these individuals were in fact repeat offenders. So, on March 7, 1994 California enacted the Three-Strikes and You’re Out Law. This laws and other laws like it are currently being utilized today all around the Untied States. This law was first backed by victim’s rights advocates in the state to target habitual offenders. The reason California holds the most importance on this law is due to the fact that it has the largest criminal justice system in America, and it has the most controversy surrounding this law in particular.(Auerhahn, p.55)
principle differentiating the two is the intent of the perpetrator of either an assault or battery. A
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.