Three-Strike Policy Pros And Cons

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.

I believe they need to be criminally punished for being the main reason that they served too many years of their 20s in prison. The innocence project was founded in 1992 by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld at Cardozo Law. Their primary purpose was to correct and prevent the wrongful conviction and imprisonment of innocent people. The innocence project has done a lot to fight the wrongfully imprisoned in America. As of July 2022, the

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 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 is the final draft of my HCP, where I had a completely new topic for my HCP. This draft is about the Three Strikes Law in New Mexico, where we had seen a lot of increase in crime rates after the Three Strikes Law was passed in 1994. This draft involves a lot of information about how the Three Strikes Law has caused an increase in crime rates every year and what kind of crimes has increased in New Mexico City. By the end of this draft, I was not completely satisfied with my final draft because I did not get a chance to review this draft as much I thought could have done it since they were some parts in the essay that were confusing to Professor Tae Sung even though I tried my best to make sure there is nothing confusing to him in my paper.

California’s Three Strikes Law was implemented in order to improve public safety. The murders of Polly Klaas and Kimber Reynolds caused the citizens of California to request a reactive measure in order to improve California’s preventive safety measures. Polly Klaas and Kimber Reynolds were both murdered by repeat offenders. The murders resulted in a public outcry and a petition was started in order to improve the sentencing requirements for repeat offenders (Skelton, 1993). The Three Strikes Law became a source of controversy due to the fact that many people argued that the law was in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which states that, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments

The three strike law aimed to convict career offenders by giving them a harsher verdict when the offender has been convicted of their third offenses. The goal of this law was to control career offenders by making them think twice about committing crimes because of the harsh punishment they would face if they were caught committing the third crime. Ever since the law has been passed it has been in the center of many controversies. Many argue that the law is unfair to the offenders and that it has a negative effect on society.

The idea behind this legislation was that they should get time reciprocal to the crime, adult time for adult crime, but

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.

You are most definitely correct Mark. The Three-strike laws are a good way to deter crimes. As stated on the Golden Gate University Law review, the Three-strike law has had a deterrent effect because it reduces felony arrests rates among the class of criminals with 1 strike by 29 to 48 percent (Goodno, 2010, p. 469). Statistically, it seems to somewhat stop repeat offenders. Bill Veeck is known for famously saying, “If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can’t get you off” (Demakis, 2012, p. 354).

Introduction Crime, its punishment, and the legislation that decides the way in which they interact has long been a public policy concern that reaches everyone within a given society. It is the function of the judicial system to distribute punishment equitably and following the law. The four traditional goals of punishment, as defined by Connecticut General Assembly (2001), are: “deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation.” However, how legislature achieves and balances these goals has changed due to the implementation of responses to changing societal influences. Mandatory minimum sentences exemplify this shift.

In today’s society people are going to jail for committing minor felonies such as possession of a small amount of drugs, shoplifting a two dollar pair of socks, breaking into a soup kitchen for food, writing a bad check for $146, and stealing a slice of pepperoni pizza. Why are these people going to jail for these minor felonies you might ask? The answer is simple; it’s due to the “Three Strike Laws.” You might be asking yourself what are Three Strike Laws, in Criminal Justice the Three Strike Laws are defined as laws enacted by state governments which mandate courts to impose harsher sentences on those convicted of an offense if they have been previously convicted of two prior serious criminal offenses.

On March 7, 1994, the governor of California signed into law the "Three Strikes" legislation (Harris & Jesilow, 2000, P185). The law was originally set in place to hold those who committed serious felony offenses accountable for their second and third convictions, and intended to send a “…message to those who would prey on the innocent” (Harris & Jesilow, 2000, P185). The second offense would include penalty twice the prison term and a third would result in a sentence three times the normal stint given or a term of twenty-five years to life, whichever is greater. The “Three Strikes” law significantly disrupted the efficiency of the court system by increased trials and greater workloads and made predictions of case outcomes difficult. The “Three Strikes” law not only cause and influx of work and jail population but was also ineffective in “punishing” those who were committing the crimes, eventually leading to a revision of the law in 2012.

In other words, mandatory sentencing for repeating offenders that have not learned their lesson and also so they stop committing crimes in the street since they are imprisoned. What the law basically states is that if you are a felon that has two felonies in their record and gets charged with a third felony, you must received the maximum sentence for the type of felony. With this law follows a lot of controversy. Some people believe that it is too harsh and can ruin a person's life. Others believe it is well deserved as you get 3 chances to better yourself.

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).