Michael Romano's Three Strikes

Rehabilitation for at risk teens has been an ongoing issue that runs deep in certain communities. When kids at young ages are exposed to stress and have to cope early on with dysfunction they are denied the opportunity to mature and conditioned to commit thinking errors that perpetuate a young offender into an adult offender. To find ways to break this cycle John Hubner accounts his time on the Giddings State School Capital Offenders Program and how a group of counselors are able to combine many strategies in rehabilitating young offenders who have committed serious crimes. Young people convicted of serious crimes are often transferred to adult prisons that institutionalize young people to prison life only increasing the likely hood of

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 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

In 1994 Polly Klaas was kidnapped from a slumber party at her home in California and later murdered by Richard Allen Davis who already had 2 prior convictions for kidnapping on his record. The public was outraged that a repeat offender was able to attack again. Politicians catered to this outrage and sold the public on a bill that would repeat offenders off the streets for good with the three strikes and you’re out legislation.

In 1994 Polly Klaas was kidnapped from a slumber party at her home in California and later murdered by Richard Allen Davis who already had 2 prior convictions for kidnapping on his record. The public was outraged that a repeat offender was able to attack again. Politicians catered to this outrage and sold the public on a bill that would repeat offenders off the streets for good with the three strikes and you’re out legislation.

Studies suggest that there is a divide between the government and public response to juvenile incarceration. Bullis & Yovas (2005) state that support is given to correctional facilities to house juvenile offenders as a form of punishment (as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). Individuals who support this perspective are often more likely to support the construction of more prisons and stern penalties on crime based upon the presumptions that youthful offenders are aware of the consequences of their actions (Drakeford, 2002 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). On the other hand, opponents of this perspective believe that incarceration creates an opportunity to rehabilitate the offenders (Huffine, 2006 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 18). This perspective supports the purpose of juvenile detention centers as “preparatory in nature – that is, offering services focused on the development of skills needed to return successfully to mainstream

Over the last half-century, the United States has turned more and more frequently to the use of incarceration as a form of punishment. Sentencing policies and stricter laws requiring mandatory minimums for certain offenses, no matter the conditions of the offense, have boosted the incarceration rate in this country to staggering heights. The typical issues that affect America’s prison systems are reflected in Jennifer Gonnerman’s book, Life on the Outside: The Prison Odyssey of Elaine Bartlett. Elaine Bartlett’s life, along with the lives of surrounding family and friends, is forever changed by her 16 years of incarceration. Elaine Bartlett is only one of many Americans that have been wronged by the cruel and unusual punishments implemented by a society claiming to have a fair, balanced, and equal justice system. A fair and balanced justice system that convicts people who carries the right amount of drugs in weight to have a mandatory incarceration for a minimum of 15 years to life, yet those who commit murder or rape may receive a lesser sentence. There is also the issue of transitioning back into society after being incarcerated for so many years. Incarceration does not just punish the offender; the offender’s family and friends are also negatively affected by the conviction and imprisonment of a loved one. Children could be put in the system or need to be raised by other members in the family. This could lead the children to deviate down the same path as their parent who

lives around; rehabilitation gives kids a second chance. Successful rehabilitation, many argue, is better for society in the long run than releasing someone who's spent their entire young adult life in general prison population. A young person released from juvenile prison is far less likely to commit a crime than someone coming out of an adult facility (Reaves).” This is another way to look at the situation. When it comes to juvenile’s rehabilitation is a way to help the juvenile fully understand what have gotten them in their certain situation. Also, it’s a way to add onto what they can do to make sure the juvenile doesn’t

Studies suggest that young people are often at risk of re-offending (e.g. Sharkey, et al, 2003; Vincent & Seagrave, 2005). Sharkey and his colleagues explained that youth often reoffend since, as they prepare themselves in returning to their respective communities, they are usually confronted by similar situations that had influenced their behaviors prior to committing offenses. Another group of researchers however show that youth engaged in education, employment and other productive endeavors in their communities within 6 to 8 months after their release are less vulnerable to commit another offense (e.g. Keating, et al., 2002, Bullis, et al, 2002, Grossman & Tierney, 2008).

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

The "three strike law" increases the prison sentence of an individual convicted of a felony who has been previously convicted of two or more felonies, and limits the offender to receive anything but a punishment of a life sentence. Twenty-six of the fifty states implement laws that meet the same criteria that would be considered as a " three strike" law. This law was designed to keep those more likely to commit another crime out of the general public however, decrease in violent crimes after this law was implemented is opposing. This essay brings reflection upon how justifiable the third strike rule is.

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,

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

The United States leads the world in the incarceration of young people, there are over 100,000 youth placed in jail each year. Locking up youth has shown very little positive impact on reducing crime. Incarcerating youth have posed greater problems such as expenses, limited education, lack of employment, and effect on juveniles’ mental and physical well-being.

A common assumption about young people who commit violent crimes is that they are simply born evil and that nothing good can come of their lives. From this perspective, the only solution is to punish these young offenders by locking them up, either in prison or in a place for teenagers designed to make their lives as miserable as possible. Such an approach suggests that young people who hurt or kill others are untreatable. It also suggests that more prisons must be built to make our communities safe. This assumption, however, is a false one. Research shows that violent young offenders can be treated and reformed. In addition, it shows that when young people fail to receive treatment,it does