Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of "three strikes" legislation
Three strikes law problems
Problems with the three strikes law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of "three strikes" legislation
The Three Strikes Law
What happens when people continue doing bad things without learning their lesson? This is a question as a society we need to take into consideration. From the year 1991-1992 the violent crime rate in California increased by 14,000 (DisasterCenter). Due to these increasing crime rates the Three Strikes Law was created in 1994 in California and different versions were adopted into other states. This law was enacted to give repeat offenders longer sentences, sometimes sentences of 25 years to life. Since repeat offenders are hard to deal with due to their stoic attitude of jail time, this law was made to deal with returning prisoners who were now faced with spending extended time in prison for repeat offences(A Primer).This report will survey the different viewpoints that cover the Three Strikes Law. Such as the viewpoint of the system being unfair in relation to the long sentences for petty crimes and it being a financial strain that the government has to pay. I will also
…show more content…
There are people like Romano who do not think that the punishment fits the crime in regards to this law such as shown by Leandro’s story. While people like Naomi Goodno states that the law is effective due to the decreasing crime rate, and the severe punishment helps motivate prisoners to be on their best behavior (Eckholm). There are also some individuals who believe that the cost of the prisons is not worth the effect they have (A Primer), while others believe the effect is quite worth the cost (Goodno). The Three Strikes Law was produced out of fear of a increasing crime rate and the thought of a prisoner that was undeterred at the thought of going to jail. However, certain costs weigh more or less in everyone’s mind. People always have different value systems, and we as a society need to consider the question of how we want to deal with repeat
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.
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.
“You are hereby sentenced to life without the possibility of parole”. These are the words that a juvenile in America is likely to hear. Collectively, as a nation, the United States has incarcerated more juveniles with life sentences than any other nation. With this fact the arguments arise that juveniles should not be punished the same was as an adult would be but, is that really how the justice system should work? To allow a juvenile who recently robbed a store only get a slap on the wrist? Not comprehending that there are consequences for their actions and how what they have done affects the victims.
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.
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.
Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs by Samuel Walker Samuel Walker, author of Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs, presented us in his book with forty-eight propositions that dealt with crime, drugs, and our efforts toward getting rid of these problems. A few of these propositions informed us on positive actions taking place in our criminal justice system, but the majority of them told us what was not working to fight crime and drugs. One of those propositions that was a negative aspect of our justice system today in Mr. Walker's eyes was the "three strikes and you're out" laws (referred to here after as three strikes laws). He gives numerous reasons why this law is not considered to be an effective one. This paper will first explain Walker's view on the issue and then review some of the current research and opinions on the matter.
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,
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...
Starting in 1970s, there has been an upward adjustment to sentencing making punishment more punitive and sentencing guidelines more strict. Martinson's (1974) meta-analyzies reviewed over 200 studies and concluded that nothing works in terms of rehabilitating prisoners. Rehabilitating efforts were discontinued. The War on Drugs campaign in 1970s incarcerated thousands of non-violent drug offenders into the system. In 1865, 34.3% of prison population were imprisoned for drug violation. By 1995, the percentage grew to 59.9% (figure 4.1, 104). Legislation policies like the Third Strikes laws of 1994 have further the severity of sentencing. The shift from rehabilitation to human warehouse marks the end of an era of trying to reform individuals and the beginnings of locking inmates without preparation of their release. Along with the reform in the 1970s, prosecutors are given more discretion at the expense of judges. Prosecutors are often pressure to be tough on crime by the socie...
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.
More than half of prisoners reoffend within at least three years of leaving prison. Those who reoffend tend to have more severe and more aggressive offenses than previously. A man by the name of Brandy Lee has shown that by having a very strict program in prisons, violent offenders in San Francisco jails reduced the amount of violence in jails. The program also helped to reduce the rate of violent re-offences after leaving the jail by over 50 percent.
...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.
Currently, statistics indicate that 60 percent of criminals have reoffended at some point in their lifetimes. Many argue that prison causes an individual to reoffend, however many oppose this belief and argue that other factors cause a high rate of reoffending. This controversial topic raises multiple questions regarding prison and its role in reoffending, as well as what other factors can cause an individual to reoffend. The question then raised is: “to what extent does prison cause an individual to reoffend?” This question will help to determine the major factors causing individuals to reoffend, as well as give insight into additional statistics related to the topic. Numerous sources have been identified and critically analysed in order to help identify what causes individuals to reoffend. The following report will focus on the points for and against prison causing high rates of reoffending, conclusions that have been made, and ways to reduce the number of individuals who commit multiple crimes.
All over America, crime is on the rise. Every day, every minute, and even every second someone will commit a crime. Now, I invite you to consider that a crime is taking place as you read this paper. "The fraction of the population in the State and Federal prison has increased in every single year for the last 34 years and the rate for imprisonment today is now five times higher than in 1972"(Russell, 2009). Considering that rate along crime is a serious act. These crimes range from robbery, rape, kidnapping, identity theft, abuse, trafficking, assault, and murder. Crime is a major social problem in the United States. While the correctional system was designed to protect society from offenders it also serves two specific functions. First it can serve as a tool for punishing the offender. This involves making the offender pay for his/her crime while serving time in a correctional facility. On the other hand it can serve as a place to rehabilitate the offender as preparation to be successful as they renter society. The U.S correctional system is a quite controversial subject that leads to questions such as how does our correctional system punish offenders? How does our correctional system rehabilitate offenders? Which method is more effective in reducing crime punishment or rehabilitation? Our correctional system has several ways to punish and rehabilitate offenders.
Feinburg (1994, cited in: Easton, 2012: 4) says that punishment is “a symbolic way of getting back at the criminal, of expressing a kind of vindictive resentment”. When punishing an offender there are two key principles that determine the kind of punishment. These are the Retributivism response and the Reductivist response. The first principle, Retributivism, focuses on punishing the offence using 'denunciation' where they denounce the crime that has been committed so society knows they have done wrong, and it also uses 'just deserts' where the equity 'eye for an eye' is the main idea. The second principle, Reductivism, believes that deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation is the best strategy to use to punish, its aim is to reduce crime and use punishment to serve a purpose. This essay will look closer and outline the purpose of just deserts and deterrence as punishment in society, although these punishments are used widely across most crimes, this essay will look specifically at prolific offenders.