While researching this topic I have found multiple pros and cons of the three strikes law. Some of the pros that were mentioned include: repeat offenders will stay in prison; can deter offenders who have had two felony convictions from committing another crime; and it only applies to convictions. The first pro of the Three Strikes law is that repeat offenders will stay in prison for at least 25 years after their third conviction. If criminals choose to continue to break the law then will have to pay for their crimes. These criminals will not have a fourth chance to break the law. The Three Strikes law is a way to ensure justice and to stop criminals from committing more crimes. According to Adam Gelb, director of the Pew Center's Public Safety
The 3 Strike Law is a law that applies to offender that have a history of being convicted of two or more violent crimes, and have moved on to committing another serious offense. Consequently, their prison sentence is increased in comparison to their previous sentences resulting in receiving a punishment to life in prison at their third offense. However, in 1994 the state of California enacted the law were criminals could be incarcerated when committing a non-violent crime for the third time, as long as they had a history of ever committing a serious or violent felony, the 3 Strike Law will still apply to them. The 3 strike Law is beneficial to society by removing the criminals off the street and preventing them from ever putting people at risk of being victimized by them again.
In the spring of 1994, California’s Three Strikes was signed into law. It passed with the support of 72 percent of the state’s voters. (Gladwell 236) This law became highly controversial, and on November 6, 2012, voters passed Proposition 36, which amended the law with two primary provisions. Through the controversy, we must take a minute to remember how this law came to be. Mike Reynolds lost his daughter in June of 1992 to murder.
In other words, if you commit a crime the second time, you serve double and if you commit the 3rd time, you get sentenced minimum 25 yrs. in jail, no matter what crime it is. This was a new law implemented after a man who was recently paroled. He had many criminal records such as drug possession and gun abuse. At the time of release, he was on influence and was a drug addict.
In 1993, twenty three states and the federal government adopted some form of the three strike law intending to target repeat offenders. The State of Washington was the first to do so; the State of California soon followed with a considerably broader version of the law. Even though, adopted versions of the three strike law vary among the states, the laws generally reduced judicial discretion by mandating severe prison sentences for third (in some instances first and second) felony convictions. 1993 was unquestionably the peak of public concern about crime and the peak of the political response to that concern, resulting in what was a unique punitive period in American history. America’s incarceration rate increase more during the 1990s than
In 1994 the statute demanded a prison sentence of 25 years to life without parole of those convicted of a third felony or serious crime. California has received the most criticism and attention over the years regarding the constitutionality of “Three Strikes” and is considered to have the harshest stipulations. Prosecuting attorneys in California have the discretion to include or exclude a strike on previous convictions even if the crime was a misdemeanor or non-violent crime. With unusually high percentages of imprisonment and the large amounts of money being spent to maintain the prisons along with their inmates, it is important to fully understand the “Three Strikes Laws” and the effects they have on our economy along with the rights of our countries citizens. Looking at different case and statutory examples we can begin to see the flaws and imperfections that the statutes
Three-Strikes Law It is my intention to establish a relationship between the three strikes law and retention rates of prisoners incarcerated for low level offenses. Before I begin to discuss the three-strikes law, it is imperative that I give some background information on sentencing guidelines. During the 1970 's the incarceration sentences imposed were indeterminate, meaning the judge had the discretion to sentence an offender on a case by case basis and sentencing a person to state prison or county jail was supposed to be to rehabilitate that person so he/she could re-enter society. Often time’s prisoners were sentenced to different amounts of time for similar offenses.
The Constitution guarantees rights and fair treatment for everyone. The rights that the Founders outlined in the Constitution include those reserved for the federal government as well as those reserved for the people. These rights have been altered throughout the years, and some continue to be debated. Policies have been put in place to deal with those who decide to disturb the peace and break the laws. The structure of America’s society relies on these rights and laws.
In the United States, habitual offender laws, are statutes enacted by state governments which mandates the courts to impose harsher sentences on those convicted of an offense if they have been previously convicted of two prior serious criminal offenses. What this means is that people that have been put in prison 3 times will get a harsher punishment going from whatever they 're consequence is to life in prison. I am against this law, for reasons I will talk about later. The origin of the three strikes law came from article 2 section 28 of the Montana constitution in 1998, which states the three strikes law.
I believe that the federal justice system is just and unbiased. The federal justice system has guidelines and rules to keep them from using power improperly and targeting groups of people based on their race. This is talked about in article “Is the Criminal Justice System Racist”. There are statistics given pertaining to the prison sentences given to African Americans, prosecution during a felony trial, and crime/prison rates.
In theory, the felony murder doctrine makes sense and seems like it could aid in crime prevention according to choice theory. The felony murder doctrine is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first degree murder even if the intent to kill was not present. In order for the felony murder doctrine to be used, the defendant must have taken part in a dangerous felony that resulted in the death of a person. Even if the defendant did not kill anyone, if a person dies while they are commiting a dangerous felony, the defendant can be charged with first degree murder. Dangerous felonies include burglary, robbery, rape, arson, and kidnapping.
Felon disenfranchisement did not start in the United States. In fact, the practice of felon disenfranchisement began in ancient Greece and Rome before evolving even more in England with “outlawry”, by the time this practice came to the United States it began to evolve into what it is today based on the other nations practices (Grady, 2012, pp. 443-445). Felon disenfranchisement, for those who do not know, is taking away a felon’s right to vote. Usually, this only occurs when they are incarcerated, but some states also do not allow the ex-felons to vote even when they are back in regular society. In Michigan, felons are granted their right to vote again once they are freed from incarceration.
The system may be a better place for these individuals. Their lives are simpler with less temptations and situations that entice them to commit crimes again . In conclusion, there are both positive and negative effects on the prison system in America due to the shifts in sentencing of criminals. The positive effects outweigh the negative effects as America is less about mass incarceration and more about rehabilitation.
NYPD has engaged in a practice known as “Stop and Frisk”. This policy allows officers, based on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, to engage in investigatory stops and to conduct a pat down of the outer clothing of the individual if there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed” (Simmons, 2014). A stop can take place with an individual that an officer considers reasonable to search based upon speculation of an encounter. For example an officer pulls over a young black man and request for his driver license and registration. The young man complies but the officer begins to speculate and assume he is carrying either illegal drugs or a concealed weapon.
However, crimes are committed whilst in prison, such as drugs and assaults. Some critics say the ‘three strikes and you are out’ law where repeat offenders get a longer sentence are wrong, as the third strike could be a lesser crime such as public disorder. Nevertheless, if just incapacitation and no rehabilitation some critics say will be costlier to society as they will go out and reoffend and, they are not employed and pay taxes. Rehabilitation is also a punishment which should improve the offender's behaviour and stop them committing crimes. Advocates of rehabilitation state prison does not work; however, critics of rehabilitation state prison does work as the criminal cannot commit a crime against the public while incarcerated (Cavadino, 2007 p 36/56).
There is a worldwide trend in the use of penal imprisonment for serious offenses as capital punishment has been renounced by an increasing number of countries. Harsh punishments include capital punishment, life imprisonment and long-term incarceration. These forms of punishments are usually used against serious crimes that are seen as unethical, such as murder, assault and robbery. Many people believe that harsher punishments are more effective as they deter would-be criminals and ensure justice is served. Opposition towards harsh punishments have argued that harsher punishments does not necessarily increase effectiveness because they do not have a deterrent effect, do not decrease recidivism rates and do not provide rehabilitation.