Arguments Against The Three Strike Laws

Ewing had been convicted of both burglary and robbery approximately seven years before the crime that gave rise to this appeal. When he stole the golf clubs, he was still on parole following his release from prison related to those two felony convictions. Following his conviction in this case, the trial judge declined to exercise discretion and convict Ewing of a misdemeanor only, as he was allowed but not required to do under California law. After determining that Ewing should be punished for a felony offense, the trial judge applied California’s “three strikes" law, where a criminal defendant must be sentenced indeterminate life sentence, which in this case was twenty-five years to life. Ewing claimed that the sentence was disproportionate

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.

The fact that majority of the third-strike law sentences were petty offenders has raised public outcry prompting for a serious reconsideration of

Americans in our world today believe that “ minor” laws do not mean anything, but it is the “minor” laws that lead you to be a real criminal or lawbreaker. Frank Trippett argues in his passage, A Red Light for Scofflaws, that scofflaws should be stopped and be shown that a minor law is just as important as a violent crime. The author supports his argument by giving reasoning why people would think minor laws are not a huge deal. The author’s purpose is to show the reader that any laws against littering, speeding, or noise pollution should be serious and not treated by scofflaws. The author creates an objective tone for the people who are interested in any law-and-order.

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

This proposition is wanting to allow non-violent criminals to get out of jail once their primary offense is done. Proposition 57 wants to get rid of prisoners that can get more help outside of prison. However, this proposition is not a get-out-of-jail free card. Doug Porter claims in the article, yes on prop 57, that “In the end, it was ballot measure passed by California voters in 2014 that eased crowding below the threshold set my federal courts in 2009. This proposition started because of the crowding in the prisons.

The author has included two research questions: whether or not the original intent of the Three Strikes law is understood and whether the law has effectively reduced crime and recidivism rates. The method used in the article is case study whereby the author focuses on the California version of the Three Strikes law. In addition, the article employs a multidisciplinary approach in analyzing the case study including history, political science and sociology. The author found out that the California Three Strikes Law has failed to meet its initial goal of reducing the number of repeat offenders in the prison system.

In 1995 Bill Clinton escalated the seriousness of drug crimes by establishing the “three strikes, you’re out” policy, The “three strikes, you’re out” policy declared that any person with three violent crime charges would be put on trial for a life sentence, moreover it stated that any drug felony is equivalent to a violent crime. So, with possessing marijuana, crack, or cocaine being reclassified as a felony, these minor drug offenses could turn into a lifetime sentence. From 1983 to 1989 the American prison system increased from 14,301 inmates to nearly 40,000, a 180% increase. For race, by 1989 the arrest rates for whites was 365 for every 100,000 while for blacks the rate was 1,460 per 100,000, thus the incarceration rate for blacks was four times higher

Alexander identifies mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws as major contributors to the mass incarceration epidemic. Mandatory minimums are laws that attach mandatory prison sentences to certain kinds of offenses. These laws are controversial among judges, who tend to feel that they reduce judicial discretion and prevent them from handing down proportionate sentences. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has often ruled in favor of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Often ruling that while these sentences were harsh, they were not unconstitutional.

The rationale of this rule is that some crimes are so dangerous, society wants to deter individuals

For decades the United States had a pretty stable prison population, but that changed in the 1970's from the rising concerns over crack cocaine and other drugs, resulting in huge increases in drug penalties; a move to mandatory minimum sentences; and the implementation of other tough-on-crime policies, such as "three-strikes" laws and policies to ensure prisoners served at least 85 percent of their sentences. These harsher sentencing law coupled with dramatic increase and drug penalties in the fear of crime, of and wanting to keep these menace to society in prison forever. Added up to a state and federal prison population of 1.5 million, up from 200,000 in 1973. These are some of the factors that lead up to mass

Defined as a public policy that imposes an outlined amount of prison time based on the crime committed and the defendant’s criminal history, these sentences dictate that a judge must enact a statutory fixed penalty on individuals convicted of certain crimes, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Such laws have removed discretionary sentencing power from judges, instead focusing on severe punishments in line with national drug and crime concerns. While the original goal of mandatory minimum sentences was to deter potential criminals, reduce drug use, control judicial prudence, the policy has had extreme consequences such as sentencing imbalances and

A recent trend in the United States Justice System, at local and state levels, is to implement the use of formulas and algorithms to determine sentencing length. In her article “Sentencing, by the Numbers”, University of Michigan law professor Sonja Starr focuses on this trend, and shows flaws that she finds in the system. In the article, she agrees with the actions of Attorney General Eric Holder in criticizing the system for the way in which it determines the risk of future crimes. Throughout, Starr presents the system as something that will, instead of solving mass incarceration, make the problem worse for impoverished persons and minorities. Starr argues that the system discriminates against those with a socioeconomic disadvantage, has

Right now we are currently living in an unjust society; a society where millions of people are breaking a law almost everyday. In Frank Trippett’s prompt, “A Red Light for Scofflaws”, he argues that laws are only considered punishable and broken if the crime at hand is ‘large’ enough. He supports his argument by stating laws that are considered ‘minor’ that are broken almost every day by the millions of Americans. He continues his argument by claiming the “slogan of the day..” as being “You 're a fool if you obey the rules.” Trippett 's main argument is that the smaller a crime is considered, the more it turns into a ‘rule’ which can be broken with little to no consequences.

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).