No Point Of The Three Strikes Legislation

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

The corrections system has gone through the medical model, the community model, and the crime control model over the last century. In the late eighteen hundreds, the belief that incarceration itself did not reduce crime was emerging. Community based sanctions, like probation and parole, were thought to be great additions and that they would work well in conjunction with incarceration. (Wodahl, 8) Between

By the lack of rehabilitation programs in the state and federal prison systems, the chances of convicts releasing and returning back to prison increases rapidly. The lack of rehabilitation is one of the most leading causes to an offenders relapse or to a new crime that will be committed within 3 years from the offender’s release. A rehabilitation program

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

Another advantage of the three strikes law is that it provides assistance to repair a defective justice system so convicted felons who choose to be repeat offenders will stay in prison. In today’s society, most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. (Kitchen, 2008). One possible reason this could be is that it is the way of life for most. The streets and committing crimes is all they know and have grown accustomed to. They commit crimes in hopes of never getting caught but they eventually they do. But even with this, they continue to commit crimes because that is what they know. Another possible reason could be that some repeat offenders commit crimes because they would rather be locked up behind bars then out in society. Some actually know that they are incapable of living civilized lives so they choose to commit crimes to be in a place where they are accepted for who they are. So because most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, this law was implemented as an instrument that the system can use to prevent such actions. It also helps with the reduction of liberal sentences, plea bargaining, and case backlogs. (Kitchen, 2009)

To formulate the law, it was decided that the most valuable approach to reduce violent crimes was through a mandated policy decision requiring identification through past behavior of those who demonstrated clear conduct to participate in violent criminal and whose conduct was not discouraged by the usual concepts of punishment. Reed (2004) stated, “The overall purpose of punishment within the criminal justice system is to prevent the commission of crimes to deter recidivism. For this objective to be successful, punishment must be effective in addressing the problems and solutions for the entire system, not just in individual cases” (p. 502). In reducing crimes, various methods and theories are taken into account. Some of these methods are additional police, additional courts, mandatory sentencing, and increased prosecutorial resources (Reed, 2004). Because the Three Strikes Law varies from state to state, this leads to the many problems it causes in the criminal justice system.

The Three Strikes Initiative is a proposition that should be passed in this year’s ballot voting. If passed, the proposition would serve of good use to the country and its citizens. Not to mention that it could even soften or diminish the severity of the Three Strikes Law. The Three Strikes Initiative is a proposition that will discard or even overlook not so serious or violent felonies. And in doing so, it will provide rehabilitation programs, county jails as a more effective choice, and for trails to be

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 1996, males under the age of twenty-five accounted for forty-five percent of the individuals arrested for index crimes (Schafer, 1999). This raises questions for skeptics of three strikes laws. Why incarcerate offenders for life when their criminal tendencies statistically drop after a certain age? These opponents assert that three strikes laws subject offenders to over-incarceration.

The term “three-strikes” stems from the reference used in the game of baseball. The three-strikes law essentially means that a criminal is sanctioned or permitted two criminal offenses before “striking out” on the third criminal offense. This confirms that a habitual offender who is convicted of three or more violent or serious charges, “strikes out” and will receive harsher punishments. This form of legislation shows a drastic shift from retribution to incapacitation or deterrence as a type of punishment. Punishment or the threat of punishment is a representation of a mechanism that deters individuals from further engaging in criminal activity.

One of the most popular “get tough on crime” laws is the “three strikes” law. California adopted this law in 1994 and dramatically reduced the crime rate making it very effective (Lungren, 1996). The law basically states if convicted of a third felony, or violent crime, a person would face a life sentence (Lungren, 1996). The author points out an obvious fact to this “tough on crime” law, which is ignored by critics; “A criminal in prison cannot commit crimes against the general public (Lungren, 1996, para. 18). This law was also effective in two other aspects. California showed people with felony convictions leaving the state, and felons from other states no longer relocating into California (Lungren, 1996).

Incapacitation is punishment of offenders that commit crimes and are locked away in prisons so that future crimes are not an issue. Offenders can be confined within secure institutions and effectively prevented from committing additional harm against society for the duration of their sentence (Clear, Cole, & Reisig, 2013). With rehabilitation punishment, the main idea is to treat, equip with the skills, and return individual to a crime free lifestyle. People that who commit lesser offenses may receive long prison sentences if experts believe the offenders needs a longer period to become rehabilitated (Clear, Cole, & Reisig,

Over many years there has been great debate about whether rehabilitation reduces the rate of recidivism in criminal offenders. There has been great controversy over whether anything works to reduce recidivism and great hope that rehabilitation would offer a reduction in those rates. In this paper I will introduce information and views on the reality of whether rehabilitation does indeed reduce recidivism. Proposed is a quasi-experiment, using a group of offenders that received rehabilitation services and an ex post facto group that did not? I intend to prove that rehabilitation services do

By the mid-1980s, and the early 1990s, states began passing habitual offenders statutes, which in effect, identified repeat offenders in the justice system, and sentencing them to long, mandatory prison sentences, up to, and including life in prison without parole (Mays & Winfree, 2009). These statutes are known as the “three strikes” laws. The meaning behind this is that if an offender, who has been convicted three times for criminal offenses, is incapable of reforming, and therefore should be incarcerated, and kept away from the rest of society. In principle, this may sound like a great idea, and a great way to keep society safe,