Impact Of The Three Strike Laws On The State Of California

The 3 Strikes Crime Law gives court system all across the nation unwavering power to inflict harsh sentencing laws on non-violent criminals. The 8th Amendment protects people from being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, however, the 3 Strikes Crime Law allows States Courts to punish non-violent criminals just as severely as violent criminals. Many criminals with non-violent, non-serious crimes who have been sentenced under the harsh 3 Strikes Crime Law have appealed their cases and were denied reevaluation by the Supreme Court. The 3 Strikes Crime Law allows the court system to punish criminals based off of the amount of crimes they have committed, rather than the severity. When considering who this law affects it can be extremely unnerving, and often seems cruel.

Zero tolerance policies have been implemented for a variety of reasons and within a broad range of applications. The two most well known however are California’s three-strikes law and the declaration of schools as gun-free zones. California’s three-strikes law was passed in 1994 and is an escalating scale of sentencing. Defendants convicted of a previous felony, or on their “second strike”, would be sentenced to state prison for double the term normally provided for

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

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).

Since the policy was enacted in the early 1990s, three strikes laws have been one of the most controversial issues facing the American criminal justice system. In general, advocates believe that locking up criminals will protect society. Critics believe that three-strike policy can only be effective with offenders that are on their last strikes (Worrall, 2008). However, other critics explain how three-strike laws don’t significantly reduce crime because most criminals mature out of the criminal lifestyle (Worrall, 2004).

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,

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,

There are also constitutional issues with three-strikes. The most obvious being that the law is a form a cruel and unusual punishment. Under the law, someone like Albert would face life in prison at age seventeen; life imprisonment for a seventeen-year-old seems cruel and unusual by most standards, making three-strikes-and-you're-out unconstitutional. The principle of proportionality that the punishment should not be more than is merited by the crime is also violated. Three-strikes also violates the principle of punishment for specific offenses. The government can only punish criminals for specific crimes they commit. Three-strikes, on the other hand, does not punish for a specific crime but instead establishes an arbitrary standard that judges the person. It does not punish a criminal for specific offenses but for general past behavior. The last constitutional difficulty with this law is that it violates separation of powers by putting sentencing jurisdiction in the hands of the prosecutor.

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

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