Can Racial Profiling Be Justified

The 3 Strikes Crime Law is one of the nation’s harshest sentencing laws. Are you aware that even non-violent criminals are sentenced to life in prison under the 3 Strikes Crime Law? More than 4,000 non-violent criminals are currently serving life in sentence in prison in California alone. (Vega & Galloway, 2012). If you take these outrageous numbers and add them to the rest of the nations non-violent criminal statistics the numbers are shocking. The 3 Strikes Crime Law is a violation of the 8th Amendment, as the maximum penalty for non-violent offenders is severe, unjust, and

In the 1990s, states began to execute mandatory sentencing laws for repeat offenders. This statute became known as “three strike laws”. The three strikes law increases prison sentence for people convicted of a felony. If you have two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, it limits the ability that offenders have to receive a punishment other than life sentencing. By 2003 over half of the states and federal government had enacted the “three strike laws”. The expectation behind it was to get career criminals off the street for the good of the public. However, the laws have their connoisseurs who charge sentences that are often excessive to the crimes committed and that incarcerate of three strike inmates for 25 years to life. Nevertheless, the US Supreme Court has upheld three strike laws and had rejected the fact that they amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

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

In conclusion, the three strikes law will surely always be a policy that will be scrutinized by those affected by it. In the state of Texas, perhaps the policy should be looked at and amended as it has been in place since the 1950’s. Society has changed drastically since the advent of the law in Texas; many will argue that it has changed for the worse and the policy in needed more now than when it was implemented. It is this writers opinion that the policy serves a greater purpose, but could also be amended and made better by the great men and women we have in place in our criminal justice system. This great state must always strive to become even greater, and part of that comes from looking at policies that have been in place for decades

The three strike law was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 2015. Some individuals arrested under it have been realised. However, during its existence, it had made the building of 20 new federal prisons necessary.

The Three-Strikes Law has three different components. Just like marriage, driving, and educational laws the Three-Strikes law has its own version in every state. Unfortunately California’s Three-Strikes law is causing the most controversy. The three parts in California’s law are the defendant’s record of prior convictions, the current charge and the minimum punishment the defendant is facing. A man or woman has to be convicted of two felonies and charged with another one before the Three-Strikes law can come into play. Dictionary.com defines a felony as “an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, especially those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year” (Brauchli).

Mass incarceration is a major problem in the United States. Since the tough on crime movement that began to emphasize more punishment and creating new policies such as; three strikes law, truth-in sentencing laws, mandatory sentencing, and determinate sentencing, our prisons and jails have become overcrowded. The three strikes law increases the prison sentence of an offender convicted of three felonies or serious crime. Usually the punishment ranges from a minimum of 25 years to life in prison. The truth-in sentencing laws require the offender to serve a substantial amount of their prison sentence (usually around 85 percent) before they are eligible for release on parole. The mandatory sentencing requires a minimum period of incarceration that the offender must serve regardless of the history of the offender or the nature of the circumstance. These get tough policies have implicated longer prison and jail sentences and has reduced the amount of discretion that the judges, parole/probation officers and prison and jail administrators. These actions have consequently increased the prison and jail population, which causes an increase in money spent on jails and prisons.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office information guide, “ The Three Strikes and You're Out Law,” the purpose the Three Strikes Law is to enhance the sentences of really dangerous criminals like rapists, murderers, and many other crimes. This law has led to fewer guilty pleas, increase in jury trials, and to a “reduction in crimes committed by repeat offenders incarcerated for longer periods during its provisions, thus resulting in savings to local and state governments,” (The Three Strikes and You're Out Law). Susan Fisher states that proposition “ 57 effectively overturns key provisions of Mercy’s Law, 3 Strikes and You're Out, Victims Bill of Rights, Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act - measures enacted by voters that has protected victims and made communities safer, ” (Proposition 57 Voter Information Guide). The purpose of the Three Strikes Law is also to prevent recidivism. Many people, however, have questioned the effectiveness of this law, especially since this law has increased the populations in some prisons, especially those in California, as stated in the article, “Three Strikes Sentencing Law.” However, the Legislative Analyst’s Office guide states that “ the number of inmates sent to prison under the Three Strikes law will be less than it originally projected,” (The Three Strikes and You're Out Law). Although it is criticized for keeping more criminals

We live in a world of laws, statutes, and regulations. This society has to enforce all of it in order to keep this country from going into complete chaos. Some laws can cause a large amount of controversy and debate over it. Specifically speaking, the Three Strikes and You’re Out Law. This one law has many people arguing for and against it. Statements from many saying that it is unjust and unfair, while others say that is what our society needs in order to keep this world safe from those career criminals. I strongly agree with the Three Strikes Law; although, the law should be altered in order for fit the different situations of individuals.

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,

U.S Supreme Court has upheld three strikes laws and has rejected the argument that they amount to Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Even though they may seem disproportionate to the crimes committed, the victim should have already known that they earned a previous strike and should be aware that any type of crime would have consequences from there on after. That is what the whole purpose of the law is.

The purpose of the Three Strikes Law is to reduce serious or violent crime rates and provide a means to practice racial disparity in sentencing. The law is also intended to give longer sentences to offenders who are convicted three times. Usually, the first and second convictions result in punishment, but of a more routine appeal. Justice James A. Ardaiz, the Fifth Appellate District of California explained,

One of the most controversial laws in the efforts to reduce crime has been the "three-strikes" laws that have been enacted. This law, which is already in twenty-seven states, requires that offenders convicted of three violent crimes be sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole. The law is based on the idea that the majority of felonies are committed by about 6% of hard core criminals and that crime can be eliminated by getting these criminals off the streets. Unfortunately, the law fails to take into account its own flaws and how it is implemented.

In contrast, the Washington law was enacted in December of 1993. Additionally, the penalties for a third-strike varies. In the Washington statute, all three strikes must be for felonies that are specifically listed in the legislation. Moreover, there is no second strike provision in the Washington statute. The Washington Three Strike law statute requires a life term in prison without the possibility of parole for a person convicted for the third time of any of the serious crimes listed in the

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).