Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Problems with the three strikes legislation
Three strikes law essay
Three strikes law essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Problems with the three strikes legislation
This writing assignment contains the following information based on the criminal justice system. This assignment will focus on The Three strikes law and the impact on the California law enforcement; Second, the prison crowding and Cost implications; Third, the effect on crime and the impact on Public Safety. Three strikes law is the conviction for a felony resulting in a mandatory and lengthy prison term.(7) Beginning in 1993, twenty three states and the federal government adopted the three strikes law which, intended to target repeated violent offenders. The requirements for sentencing a defendant as a third strike offender were changed to twenty-five years to life by requiring the new felony to be a serious or violent crime. Three strikes laws have been the reason of extensive debate over whether they are effective.
As stated by the Legislative Analyst’s Office the major changes are as follows:
Second Strike Offense. If a person has one previous serious or violent felony conviction, is twice the term otherwise required under law for the new conviction.
Third Strike Offense. If the person has two or more pervious serious or violent felony convictions, the sentence for any new felony conviction is life imprisonment with the minimum term of 25 years.
Consecutive Sentencing. The statute requires consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentencing for multiple offenses committed by strikers.
As a result, the three strikes law increased the length of time some repeated offenders spent in state prison. For this reason, defendants who have been sentenced to long in prison under these laws have challenged these laws as unconstitutional. For example, one defendant was guilty of stealing video tapes from two department stores. The defend...
... middle of paper ...
... A third reason, is the cost of imprisoning three strikes for life will be high. On the article California’s Continuing Prison Crisis, states that the estimated cost of maintaining an older prisoner is three times that required for a younger prisoner-about 60,000 per year. Most crimes are committed by men between the ages of 15 and 24. Only one percent of all serious crimes are committed by people over age 60.
Supporters justification of the three strikes law was that it will safe California over 100 million every year, money that can be use to fund schools, fight crime and reduce the state’s deficit. A second reason is the support from law enforcement. Prop 36 helps ensure that prisons can keep dangerous criminals behind bars for life. Lastly, it will make room in prison for dangerous felons, it will help stop overcrowded prisons with non-violent offenders.
The Canadian Criminal Code (1995) stated the main principles of sentencing as “to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions” (s. 718). Section 718(a-f) considers the factors sentencing are to denounce unlawful conduct, to deter, to separate, to rehabilitate, to provide reparations and to promote a sense of responsibility.
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
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 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.
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 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...
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
As an alternative to incarceration, intermediate sanctions are most often used for non-violent offenders. Intermediate sanctions is a new option of punishment that was developed to better match the punishment with the seriousness of the crime for non-violent offenders. With this new kind of punishment, comes a new responsibility for the offender to become a contributing member of his or her community (textbook, 131). The main way that offenders accomplish this is by learning new job skills and holding a stable job (textbook, 131). Along with the job responsibilities, offenders are sometimes ordered to face additional sanctions which includes, paying any fines, getting an education or even getting treatment if needed (textbook, 131).
The aims of sentencing include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection. Punishment is used to punish the offender for their wrong conduct to an extent and in a way that is just in all circumstances and is intended to show public abhorrence from the offence. An example of a sentencing option that may be used to punish an offender includes imprisonment. A recent sentence imposed in the Tasmanian Supreme Court aimed at punishing an offender is the case of Michael Robert Keeling v State of Tasmania in which the judge needed to balance the need to punish the offender and the need to deter him and others from such conduct while keeping the best interests of the community in mind. Deterrent sentences are aimed at deterring not only the offender from further offences but also potential offenders. Specific deterrence is concerned with punishing an offender in the expectation they will not offend again whereas general deterrence is related to the possibility that people in general will be deterred from committing crime by the threat of punishment. An example of ...
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.
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...
The cost of the death penalty is extraordinary. California has spent more than $4 billion administering the death penalty since 1978, or more than $300 million per person for each of the 13 people who have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated. Conversely, it costs approximately $200,000 to $300,000 to convict and sentence an individual to life without the possibility of parole. If those sentenced to death received life sentences instead, we accomplish the same deterrent effect of the death penalty: criminals remain off the streets for the rest of their lives. The money saved could be spent on improving the criminal justice system such as increasing
...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.
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2011). America’s courts and the criminal justice system (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.