A sample of inmates released during this period was drawn from a list obtained from the Florida Department of Correction, for a total sample of roughly 3,793 offenders. Careful attention was given to securing a representative sample from each offense group. The offenders chosen were released from public and private state prisons after expiration of their sentences. The centralized idea of this study was to determine the differentiation between public and private state prisons focusing on recidivism. I have chosen two cases that reflect on the central issue of this topic and how they are treated by the Courts which can hopefully shed some light on the research problem as it exists in present society. These cases are based on California's legislative system which relate to the problem of recidivism in Florida.
In 1994, California legislators and voters approved a major change in the state's criminal sentencing law, (commonly known as Three Strikes and You're Out). The law was enacted as Chapter 12, Statutes of 1994 by the Legislature and by the electorate in Proposition 184 (Mullin, 1998). As its name suggests, the law requires, among other things, a minimum sentence of 25 years to life for three-time repeat offenders with multiple prior serious or violent felony convictions. The Legislature and voters passed the Three Strikes law after several high profile murders committed by ex-felons raised concern that violent offenders were being released from prison only to commit new, often serious and violent, crimes in the community.
Repeat offenders are perhaps the most difficult of criminal offenders for state
and local criminal justice systems to manage. These offenders are considered unresponsive to incarceration as a ...
... middle of paper ...
...hout possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony (Ewing v. California)."
Harmelin v. Michigan 501 U.S. 957 (1991)
This case states that Harmelin claims clearly establish a principle that his sentence is so grossly disproportionate that it violates the Eighth Amendment
(Andrade v. California).
Robinson v. California 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
This case argues that in this case, it is "unrealistic" to think that a sentence of 50 years to life for Andrade is not equivalent to life in prison without parole (Andrade v. California).
References
Ewing v. California, 538 U. S. 11 (2003)
Lockyer v. Andrade 538 U.S. 63 (2003)
270 F.3d 743
Mullin, Jerome P.(1998). California Criminal Law Observer, (Three Strikes and You're Out Law) Retrieved March 25, 2006, from http://www.silicon- valley.com/3strikes.html
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.
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)
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 three-strikes law is defined as “judges sentence offenders with three felony convictions (in some states two or four convictions) to long prison terms, sometimes to life without parole (Cole 2014). The purpose of the three strikes law includes is incapacitation and deterrence (Cole 2014). The purpose of a sentencing and the goals of punishment ideally are meant to correspond to each other. The goals of punishment include retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restorative punishment (Cole 2014). Deterrence is broken down into either specific or general deterrence. General deterrence is defined as punishment of criminals that is intended to be an example to the general public and to discourage the commission of offenses”. Specific deterrence is defined as “punishment inflicted on criminals to discourage them from committing future crimes”. Lastly, incapacitation is defined as “depriving an offender of the ability to commit crimes against society, usually by detaining the offender in prison” (Cole 2014). Two empirical articles research the effectiveness of the three strikes law on crime trends, the impact the law has on population prisons, effect on a prisons budget,
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.
California has one of the most dysfunctional and problematic prison system in US. Over the last 30 years, California prison increased eightfolds (201). California Department of Correctional and Rehabilitation (CDCR) does little to reform prisoners and serve as human warehouse rather than a correction institution. California's prison system fails the people it imprisons and society it tries to protect. In many cases, California's prison system exacerbates the pre-existing problems and aids in the formation of new problems for prisoners. This paper discuses the criminogenic effects of overcrowding, and reduction/elimination of programs and how it negatively affects California and the ballooning prison population and possible remedies.
74). This model is based on the classical notion that all those convicted of the same crime receive a fixed sentence, but not necessarily the same sentence. A factor that affects the sentence received is whether the person convicted is a first time or repeat offender; repeat offenders often receive harsher sentences than first time offenders. Sentencing guidelines are used to mitigate sentencing disparity, and give judges a guideline to use besides their biased opinions of the convicted persons and the crime they committed. The sentencing guidelines use a numerical system for computing sentences that fit the crime(s) committed (Stohr, Walsh,
Starting in 1993, over half the states and the federal government enacted some form of “three strike and you’re out” legislation also sometimes called the “habitual offender law” (Marion and Oliver, p.350. 2012). The state of Washington was the first to implement the three strike law; the state of California soon followed with a broader version of the law. The three strike law made mandatory those offenders who have been convicted three times for serious crimes to be sentenced to life in prison. Even though adopted versions of the law vary among states, some states reduce judicial discretion while some states allowed some judicial discretion. For example, the state of California requires twenty-five years to life in prison for any individual
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.
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
According to Vitiello, (1997) after a threefold increase in the nations prison population between 1980 and 1994, California publicized a “three strikes” legislation. (Vitiello, 1997, pg 1). This was imposed to get tougher on violent crimes.
The proliferation of harsh mandatory sentencing policies has inhibited the ability of courts to sentence offenders in a way that permits a more "problem solving" approach to crime, as we can see in the most recent community policing and drug court movements today. By eliminating any consideration of the factors contributing to crime and a range of responses, such sentencing policies fail to provide justice for all. Given the cutbacks in prison programming and rates of recidivism, in some cases over 60% or more, the increased use of incarceration in many respects represents a commitment to policies that are both ineffective and unfair. I believe in equal, fair and measured punishment for all. I don't advocate a soft, or a hard approach to punishment. But we must take a more pragmatic look at what the consequences of our actions are when we close our e...
It is undeniable that mass incarceration devastates families, and disproportionately affects those which are poor. When examining the crimes that bring individuals into the prison system, it is clear that there is often a pre-existing pattern of hardship, addiction, or mental illness in offenders’ lives. The children of the incarcerated are then victimized by the removal of those who care for them and a system which plants more obstacles than imaginable on the path to responsible rehabilitation. Sometimes, those returned to the community are “worse off” after a period of confinement than when they entered. For county jails, the problem of cost and recidivism are exacerbated by budgetary constraints and various state mandates. Due to the inability of incarceration to satisfy long-term criminal justice objectives and the very high expenditures associated with the sanction, policy makers at various levels of government have sought to identify appropriate alternatives(Luna-Firebaugh, 2003, p.51-66).
The state of California is currently suffering from a state deficit so great it would seem wise to restructure the death penalty as it stands now rather than cut education programs and jobs. California is a state which supports capital punishment; it is also a state that very rarely executes it death row inmates. In the last several years, California’s public educations system has taken on enormous budget cuts due to the state revenue crisis. As political leaders gather in the senate and review the gravity of the state’s situation, political leaders should examine how restructuring the death penalty and implementing life without parole would be beneficial for the state and those residing within the state itself. Utilizing the death penalty for the more serious offenders, such as serial killers, and implementing life without the possibility of parole, would allow the state to focus on improving educational resource, maintain job security, increase law enforcement on the streets, and rehabilitative programs for criminals.
“The history of correctional thought and practice has been marked by enthusiasm for new approaches, disillusionment with these approaches, and then substitution of yet other tactics”(Clear 59). During the mid 1900s, many changes came about for the system of corrections in America. Once a new idea goes sour, a new one replaces it. Prisons shifted their focus from the punishment of offenders to the rehabilitation of offenders, then to the reentry into society, and back to incarceration. As times and the needs of the criminal justice system changed, new prison models were organized in hopes of lowering the crime rates in America. The three major models of prisons that were developed were the medical, model, the community model, and the crime control model.