Three Strikes Law Research Paper

Upon reviewing the case of People v. Smith 437 Mich. 293 (1991), we find that the defendant Ricky Smith; an adult at the time of the commission of the offenses in question, was a habitual juvenile offender; possessing a juvenile record which included twelve juvenile entries including seven prior felonies, three misdemeanors, was charged, pleaded guilty, and convicted of breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny and being a habitual offender. As a result of the admission of guilt by Smith, he was sentenced to 3 ½ to 10 years, however, the sentence was vacated after it was determined that Smith was a habitual offender, where the current offense constituted his 4th offense. (Justlaw) Therefore, as a result of the juvenile offenses being taken into consideration for sentencing, Smith received a sentence of 6 to 30 years as a habitual offender. Smith’s argument comes from the admission of his juvenile criminal record which was referenced in the presentencing investigative report, citing that pursuant to former MCR 5.913 which indicates that “the juvenile record of a former offender was expunged at the age of twenty-seven”,(justlaw) and as such, should

The 1st-degree charge usually carries a potential sentence of 25 years to life with the chance of parole but in this case, the jury finds that "special circumstances" apply in Laci's death, and he could face a death sentence or life in prison without parole. The second-degree charge carries a potential sentence of 15 years to life. December 13, 2004 The same jury recommended that he die by lethal injection. To date, he remains on death row at San Quentin State Prison in California pending an appeal and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was filed with the Supreme Court of the State of California in 2015.

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.

If the offender is found guilty for the charge they will receive the harsher sentence, it is all about being honest within the federal courts, on determining the offenders

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

These laws were initiated in the 1970’s and put into action in the 1980’s. Ronald Reagan made these laws after initiating a war on the production, sale, and usage of illegal drugs. These laws insist on 5 years in prison for the first drug related felony, 10 years for the next felony sentencing, and 25 to life for the third felony. A process known as the three strikes rule. This campaign for the war on drugs has dragged out into current times.

2 In recent years, mandatory sentencing laws have been introduced in NSW. Alcohol related violence mandatory sentence was introduced by the NSW government On 21 January 2014. This was introduced because of the amount of one-punch hits while intoxicated. Teens such as Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie have been killed because intoxicated people for no reason hit them.

Individuals who commit the same crime should receive the same sentences, if the this is the individuals first appearance. If one of the individuals has committed the crime before, and then committed it again, this individual needs to be punished more severely, then the one that committed it for the first time because the judicial system needs to show individuals that it is not going to allow an individual to commit the same crime over and over and just get a slap on the wrist for

Longer sentences can also lead to overcrowding, which prevents prisoners access to rehabilitative programs have have a greater chance that mental health issues will worsen for these prisoners. Many other states have create similar innovative programs to lower incarceration and crime rates. Legislation in Texas for example provided $241 million dollars to develop many different alternatives to prison, including additional substance abuse treatment beds, drug courts, and mental illness treatment programs. Another state is South Carolina, who put an end to its mandatory minimum sentences for drug possession and also expanded prison alternative and parole eligibility. Similar to this, the state of New Jersey lowered its prison population by upgrading its parole process and putting an increase on how flexible sentencing of low-level drug offenders is.

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.

Then during your court proceedings, the prosecutor brings up two prior convictions from thirty years earlier so he can charge you under mandatory sentencing laws. This means a life sentence without parole over a fifty- cent pack of doughnuts. Though this scenario sounds too outrageous to be true, it happened to Robert Fassbender, a California man. States Attorney Yraceburn stated," Because of his (Fassbender) history of recidivism and the number of crimes he 's been convicted of," Fassbinder

The current system that incarcerates people over and over is unsustainable and does not lower the crime rate nor encourage prisoner reformation. When non-violent, first time offenders are incarcerated alongside violent repeat offenders, their chance of recidivating can be drastically altered by their experience in prison. Alternative sentencing for non-violent drug offenders could alleviate this problem, but many current laws hinder many possible solutions. Recently lawmakers have made attempts to lower the recidivism rates in America, for example the Second Chance Act helps aid prisoners returning into society after incarceration. The act allows states to appropriate money to communities to help provide services such as education, drug treatment programs, mental health programs, job corps services, and others to aid in offenders returning to society after incarceration (Conyers, 2013).

Through the decades, crime and crime control have been analyzed in an attempt to find the causes of crime and decide how to combat them. The United States showed an increase in their prison population in the 1970s when the country turned towards a more punitive justice system. Referred to as just deserts theory of crime, the aim is to inflict as much pain on the offender through harsh prison sentences, in hopes to cause as much pain as the crime they committed. The worse the crime is, the worse the punishment the criminal will endure. The issue surrounding just deserts theory is the vast amount of offenders who return to prison after being released, also known as the recidivism rate.

General deterrence and Specific deterrence at first glance seems like it runs hand and hand. As you look closer and understand it better, you come to the realization that they are two different topics. General deterrence is focused on the legal punishment if you are caught committing a crime. Specific deterrence focuses on punishment of criminals that are apprehended. So many question still remain on how effective both deterrence really are.