Effects Of Three Strike Laws

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.

This paper looks at some of the problems with the three strikes legislation and how it affects different parties such as nonviolent offenders, the department of corrections system, the court system, and the public in general.

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).

United States throughout history has tried many different ways to deter criminals from committing crime. One of the more famous polices enforced was the Three Strikes sentencing laws, and other “get tough” approaches. In 1994, the Three Strikes sentencing law was first established (Couzens, J. Richards and Tricia A. Bigelow). The law stated that any defendant convicted of any new felony, having been convicted before of a serious felony to be sentenced to state prison for twice the term otherwise given for the crime. If the defendant was convicted of any felony with two or more prior strikes, the law mandated a state prison term of at least 25 years to life (Couzens, J. Richards and Tricia A. Bigelow). In California and Washington, the three strike law was adopted and in both states showed contradictive results. It has become a very controversial form of deterrence and is widely debated if the three strikes sentencing laws actually deter criminals from committing crimes.

Brown, Brian, and Greg Jolivette. "A Primer: Three Strikes - The Impact After More Than a Decade." Legislative Analyst’s Office. Web. October 2005.

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,

On an everyday basis, how is the three strikes law affecting people in New Mexico? The three strikes law is one of the most modernized laws in the criminal justice system of the United States, where it has been created in the efforts to reduce and prevent crimes in the states especially for required sentencing laws for repeat criminal offenders. In 2003, more than half of the United States had adopted the three strikes law; in addition, the law is raised when criminals have committed their third felonies. Therefore, these laws execute a harsher penalty of a minimum of 25 years of a life sentence for criminals who have committed a crime for the third time even though their crimes that are not evil. There were many arguments raised when many of the criminals were sent to prison for 25 years for a very small crime such as petty theft. Many of the people in the United States argued that a 25 year prison is very similar to the punishment for committing murder. In 2013, according to The Washington Times Newspaper by associated press, Santa Fe, N.M. (AP) house majority leader Nate Gentry argues that “New Mexico is the second most dangerous state in the nation as far as violent crime goes” (press). This is the result based on the 24/7 Wall Street data; therefore, Gentry also said that it is one of the most dangerous place to be a child because many children are getting affected by the crimes they are seeing from their perspective. For the last few years, three strikes law has

In relation to the Classical School of Criminology Gaines’ situation is based on Cesare Beccaria’s idea that “… for a given act, a particular punishment should be administered as established by law, regardless of the contextual circumstances” (Schram & Tibbetts, 2017, p. 66). The Three-Strikes law takes in account two previous offenses and makes the third a much more severe punishment regardless of what it was, prior to the amendment. The amendment takes in account whether or not the final offense was violent or

Between 1993 and 1995, 24 states and the federal government adopted some form of the three strikes law, which reduced judicial discretion practices and mandated severe incarceration periods to those who were convicted of three or more felonies (Peak, 2012). The rational of the three-strikes you are out law was an attempt to protect society and deter crime by targeting repeat offenders such as murders, rapists, and child molesters by locking them up for long periods of time. The law was built around a political push in the early nineties adopted around public perception that the prison system was lenient on criminals and society needed to get tough on crime. While the three-strike law was intended

The criminal justice issue that has been chosen as the topic on this course project is the “three strike” sentencing and how it should be abolished. The three strike sentencing was established in 1994 under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. (Harris, 1995). In this act, the statute of three strike sentencing provides a mandatory life imprisonment sentence for convicted felons that have been convicted in a federal court for a serious

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.

Bjerk posits that arrestees under three-strikes laws often avoid their third strike and instead get prosecuted for lesser charges. Bjerk suggests this may be the result of prosecutorial discretion but could also be the result of other’s attitudes and actions. Discuss changes in criminal, police, judge, jury, and defense attorney behavior that might impact the avoidance of mandatory minimum sentences.

This involved of a very detailed outline of my HCP essay about my new topic on Three Strikes law in New Mexico. It has concepts that is associated with what define Three Strikes Law in New Mexico and some examples what led the Three Strikes law to be passed in 1994 and some of the argument points that helped me to reinforce my evidences in my paper. This helped me a lot to create a good multi-modal composition project.