California's Three Strikes Law

Other punitive measures, that have developed out of the just deserts mentality, such as three-strikes laws, which required life sentences for those with three convictions, as well as Scared Straight programs and boot camps, have negligible or detrimental effects to recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Studies have repeatedly shown that long prison sentences and lack of rehabilitation actually increases the likelihood of reoffending (Canadian Civil Liberties Association [CCLA], 2011). While using punitive measures in the name of retribution may make those in society feel safe, there is no evidence to support this approach.

Since the tough-on-crime era began in the 1980s, the California prison system and parolee population have grown tenfold. This is in great part due to the three strikes law that passed in 1994. This law made it a requirement for any offender convicted of a felony with two previous felonies to go to prison for a minimum of twenty five years. This law sent many people to prison for longer sentences due to non-violent drug offenses, when in actuality they should have been sentenced to rehab. Prison overcrowding is an important topic that all Americans should care about, since according to The Bureau of Justice Statistics, over ninety-five percent of all prison inmates will be released at some point, with over eighty-five percent of them being placed under parolee supervision. Of this population, sixty-five percent suffer from substance abuse issues and meet the need for treatment for their addiction. Drug and alcohol abuse, specifically drug abuse, and crime are inextricably related. Unfortunately, the majority of those released from prison who suffer from addiction issues are not treated while incarcerated, and as a result end up back in prison.

The “three strikes and you’re out” law is in effect in different states around the country. In basic terms, the law requires that any offender that is convicted of three violent crimes must receive a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. The law is aimed at reducing crime by focusing on the small percentage of criminals that commit the majority of violent crimes and felonies. Many systems have been lenient with repeat offenders, allowing

The United States prison population has grown seven-fold over the past forty years, and many Americans today tend to believe that the high levels of incarceration in our country stem from factors such as racism, socioeconomic differences, and drugs. While these factors have contributed to the incarceration rate present in our country today, I argue that the most important reason our country has such a high incarceration rate is the policy changes that have occurred since the 1970s. During this time, the United States has enacted policy changes that have produced an astounding rise in the use of imprisonment for social control. These policy changes were enacted in order to achieve greater consistency, certainty, and severity and include sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three strikes laws (National Research Council 2014). Furthermore, I argue that mandatory sentencing has had the most significant effect on the incarceration rate.

According to President Bill Clinton, “We have a chance to pass the toughest, the smartest crime bill in the history of the United States,” and this was the California residents ' belief at the time the Three Strikes and you’re out law took effect in 1994.The purpose of the Three Strikes Law is to punish habitual offenders upon receiving their third conviction of any felony. Initially, if an individual receives a serious or violent felony conviction, this is a first strike; subsequently, the second serious or violent felony charge is a second strike and the individual will serve double the time originally assessed for the first felony. Finally, upon the third felony conviction an individual receives a minimum sentence of twenty five to life in prison. Even though twenty-three states, including the federal government, several politicians such as, Senator Bob Dole, and President Bill Clinton supported the passage of the Three Strikes Law. Undoubtedly, the Three Strikes bandwagon happened during a time in society when fear of crime was at its peak; as a result, law enforcement and other government officials went to the extreme in promising citizens to end habitual crime. Therefore, if the Three Strikes Law is to be a fair and impartial punishment for all criminals’ committing serious and violent crimes; then the crime committed must fit the consequences. Thus, is it fair to condemn a man who has two previous serious felonies for stealing a one dollar item on his third offense,

Does California’s three strikes law  defy the law of  the eighth amendment prohibiting the against cruel and usual punishment? In the case of Ewing v. California this question is put to the test when a man is sentence 25 years to life because of the “three strikes you 're out” policy.

In the article Three Strikes Burglar a Step Closer to Release a man named Dale Curtis Gaines has served 15 years in prison “after processing stolen computer equipment” (Payne, 2013). Due to Proposition 36, an amendment that makes criminals eligible to be released if their third crime was neither violent nor serious, Gaines is seeking release and prosecutors agreed on his qualification. Gaines must be able to prove that he is not a danger to society in order to be released. If released Gaines would be the second “three-striker” (Payne, 2013) freed.

"Three Strikes and You're Out!” you think you would be hearing that phrase at a baseball game when a player has struck out but the phrase has been used as a metaphor for the three strikes law in California. It is a law that sentences repeated offenders, of serious or violent crimes, to twenty-five to life in prison. Although it seems desirable to put repeated offenders in prison, they are convicted even for petty crimes. It sentences an offender, whose first strike was a serious or violent crime, to serve a double sentence if the second crime is also serious or violent. The most controversial part of this law is that the third crime can be any crime, even misdemeanors, can “strike” out repeated offender because of their past felonies even

In the early 1990’s, numerous states began implementing criminal statutes that mandated increased sentences for repeat offenders of serious crimes; we know this as the “three strikes law." States implement three strike laws to ensure that repeat offenders are constantly imprisoned. The logic is that while a criminal is in prison he or she can’t be out in public hurting anyone. Since three strikes laws apply to defendants who commit multiple crimes in succession, these laws aim to keep criminals that are most likely to re-offend in prison. As a matter of fact, by 2012 more than half the states and the federal government enacted three strikes laws. The states which carry three strikes or habitual offender laws are: Arizona, Arkansas, California,

Until the early 1970s, the sentencing of crime convicts was based on the principle of rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders. Legislatures set maximum authorized sentences for various types of crimes and judges decided on the prison term or probation or fines. Correctional officials and parole boards had the powers to reduce the time served for good behavior and release prisoners early. In the 1980s and 1990s, the emphasis shifted to deterrence by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for certain types of crime, heavier sentences for habitual offenders and the “three-strike” rule for felony convictions. Public opinion supported these changes in the belief that prison terms were just retribution for crimes and incarceration kept criminals off the streets (Mackenzie, 2001).

This reduction eventually helped to deter criminals with the threat of increased incarceration. It has also been proven that three-strikes laws reduce felony arrest rates. People in favor of three-strikes laws believe that it is an example of effective crime control, a preventive measure for career felons, adds additional peace of mind for citizens, and provides harsher punishments for habitual offenders. On the other hand, those who are against the use of three strikes laws suppose that it adds an additional cost to courts and prisons, causes an over-population in prison cells, is an example of an unfair law, and is a result of the decline in the number of law enforcement officer

Reflected in this work is a step by step recommendation to end the issues that have created mass incarceration in the United States. It reviews and suggests that many laws and practices were passed that have not served humanity well. These works ask for fair and effective sentencing and the repeal of three strikes and mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Studies suggest that many offenders after the age of thirty-five are less likely to commit crimes. Therefore, age should be a factor in release programs based on offenders age. This paper is important because it provides a background to practices that have resulted in the United States mass imprisonment of its citizens

Repeat offenders have become a dilemma for the criminal justice system because the repeat offenders are unresponsive to incarceration. Supporters of Proposition 184, known as Three Strike Initiative, insisted lengthy sentences for repeat offenders would reduce crime (Legislative Analyst's Office, 2005). New sentencing policies Three Strike laws will have a major impact on society and the criminal justice system in the future. The state of Washington was the first state to adopt the new three strikes policy in 1993 in response to the high recidivism rates and the murder of Polly Klaus by a repeat and violent criminal offender. California followed suit and is to have the harshest three-strike laws, which classifies felonies violent and serious. Soon after California adopted the three strikes law about two dozen other states joined. The law mandates if a person has two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions, sentence of 25 years to life would be a mandatory (Law Info, 2012).

Mandatory minimums and three strike laws, are they really the answer to the crime problem America has faced for years? Many would say yes, including me, as long as it is for a violent crime such as murder, rape or arson; some feel that even theft, drug trafficking or possession, and burglary are all worthy of the 25-to-life sentence that can be carried under the mandatory minimums for three strike laws. A three-strike law is a law that states that you will be sentenced to 25years to life for three violations and convictions of a law. Where the three strike laws have mandatory sentences, mandatory sentences aren’t always tied in with three strike laws. A mandatory minimum is a law that requires someone

I did not understand the complete ramifications of the three-strike law until this course, because I live in Kentucky and this law is not in effect. In Kentucky, a persistent offender is given longer prison terms with each new charge. For instance, if Chad were to receive a misdemeanor in 10 years, he would be punished for that specific crime and be labeled a persistent offender. If he were to receive another misdemeanor charge a few years later, his criminal history would constitute a stiffer punishment but he would not be facing life in prison. Incarcerating a habitual offender just because he or she has committed a third crime is accomplishing increased taxes to pay for their upkeep, increased overcrowded facilities, and sometimes injustice.