Problems With The Three Strikes 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.

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 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).

Richard Allen Davis was on parole during this time and had long history of violent crimes. This incident helped in making Mr. Reynolds’ point that most people who are committing these crimes have already had previous experience with committing violent crimes, and they are getting out of prison and are repeating the similar violent crimes without receiving harsher sanctions (Walter & Downs, 1994). Reynolds, a hurting father and a famous photographer, petitioned the legislation in coming up with the “Three Strike and You’re Out” policy. Reynolds campaigned that offenders who commit three violent crimes should receive a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. In 1993, Washington, then California, became the first states to add the three strikes statute to their books. In January 1994, during President Clinton’s State of the Union Address, he requested for the enactment of a federal three strikes law (Austin et al., 2000). However, by 1997, 24 other states and the federal government enacted three strikes policies (Austin et al., 2000).

Numerous amounts of research has been conducted on the effectiveness of the three strikes sentencing policy, one of the more thorough ones to come along examined three strikes policy throughout the United States and came an interesting conclusion about the effectiveness of three strikes sentencing laws. The study found three strikes law to be ineffective in reducing crime in a variety of areas. The study found that rarely are they concerned with being caught for their crime, this was further attributed by the fact that a great deal

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.

In 1993, Washington was the first state to pass the three strikes laws; however, it later became known as the Persistent Offender Accountability Act. According to this act, courts are required to sentence “persistent offenders” to a term of life in prison

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

. I do not think, so I need to change anything in my current problem from the HCP to AP. My current problem is that for the last few years, three strikes law has enormously increased more crimes in New Mexico. A main reason there is an increase in New Mexico is because in New Mexico the three strikes law is mainly only applied for 5 specific crimes such as kidnapping, armed robbery, murder, shooting, and criminal sexual penetration. Moreover, there is debate going on in New Mexico that the crime rate is rising very rapidly to increase that New Mexico government need to toughen the three strikes law. Governor Martinez is arguing that the three strikes law is very weak that is no narrow that no inmate is currently serving a life sentence under it. There are many criminals out there on the streets of New Mexico who keep crimes but there is no one to stop them because most of the crimes in New Mexico do not even apply to the three strikes law. This is the few of the reasons why New Mexico crime rate is still high.

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.

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.

The Three Strikes Law was first passed in Washington, and then nine other states followed in 1994.The Three Strike Law is a law that give criminals extra time on their sentence, if they keep repeating felons. This laws has some consequences that come with it, but it also have several positives. One of the many advantages that come with The Three Strike Law is the deterrence effect because it help criminals understand the consequences of the law and the change of the youth actions can change the crime rate.

I do not believe the three strike law will stop criminals from committing violent crimes. When you think of most violent crimes, they are premediated, they get angry and then they snap, sometimes drugs and alcohol have an influence on this. Someone who is on the edge of breaking, does not think of their consequence of their act at the moment. They don’t even think at the time they are going to get caught.

Crime in America is growing at a substantial rate and repeat offenders are playing a huge roll in this growth. Mandatory minimum sentences, first established in Connecticut in 1969 and expanded throughout the 1980s and 1990s, exemplify a shift in public policy to impose a specific amount of imprisonment based on the crime committed and the defendant’s criminal history, and away from other individual offender characteristics and circumstances. A mandatory minimum sentence requires a judge to impose a statutorily fixed sentence on individual offenders convicted of certain crimes, regardless other mitigating factors. This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences and why I believe it would be highly effective if put into place for convicted violent offenders. There has been much debate over this topic in the United States, such as in California’s “Three Strikes Law and other similar state mandated laws. I will discuss how mandatory sentences for violent crimes will increase deterrence. That, in hopes will lower crime significantly, which continues to be increasing problem in our country. I will argue that mandatory sentencing can be designed to avoid injustices. A substantial number of offenders who commit violent crimes often receive lighter sentences for various reasons, whether it be because they have a “non-violent” past or they receive an early

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).