Proposition 57 Research Paper

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

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

Proposition 57 would allow non violent felons a shorter sentence and be released for early parole. The prison system right now is being so over flowed at least one inmate a week dies from not being able to receive the proper medical care. By proposition 57 the prison would be less crowded and not over populated. Additionally, Proposition 57 allowed inmates to earn credits for good behavior and educational or rehabilitative achievements. If the population in the prisons go up there would be mandatory releases so there would be random releases without the individual doing anything but through the proposition there is order and incentive for them to be good in prison. Also judges would not determine the releases.

Other cons are that this initiative will put hundreds of millions of dollars into trials and prisons, money that could otherwise be used for education and prevention programs. This initiative assumes that youth are capable of understanding their actions and incapable of rehabilitation. Opponents also say that the job of prosecutors is to convict a youth. It is a conflict of interest for them to decide where the youth should be tried. Judges should continue to decide (http://www.4children.org/news/100pr21.htm). Lastly, by expanding the “three-strike” law, this initiative would put more people in prisons for longer, even though California prisons are already operating at more than 200 percent capacity. Overcrowding leads to early release of many offenders.

In retrospect, should the three strikes law in Texas be amended or abolished? There is an on-going problem that our society faces, and that is prison over-population. According to The Texas Tribune, as of August 2016, there are 143,252 inmates in the Texas prison system. Would an abolishment of the three strikes rule help to alleviate the over-population of Texas prisons? California felt it important enough to take a look at their policy and amended it, should Texas do the same? Many will argue that if an individual commits a third felony that they should be incarcerated for life as they are a menace to society and not helping that community to evolve and become better. The three strikes law is something that can always be argued for

The Law has caused a huge controversial debate and there are people that personally disagree with the law. As in any controversial debate you would have the affirmative and the negative side. Let’s explore some of the positive facts that the Three Strikes Law that support the affirmative side. To start of with one popular note is that it keeps the career criminals, individuals who commit crime as a part of their lives, off the streets. Of course we want to keep the sex offenders, murderers, and rapist, off the street so we can worry that much less for the safety of ourselves and others. Another positive is that it is a deterrent. It is a very effective deterrent after the second conviction (Mersseli). If an offender is released from the second conviction, this law will deter them from any crime, whether it is minor or not. The thought of being sent to prison for 25 years to life is a pretty effective deterrent and will have that offender thinking more than twice before he or she will commit another crime.

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

Is proposition 53 a solution in search of a problem or is it a long term solution. Just like every other proposition proposed, this proposition can either benefit the community or it can impact it negatively. November 8th is an important day because of the fact that voters will go out and cast their vote. On this day a new president will be elected. Voters must also vote yes or no on certain propositions. Proposition 53 is strictly for California, any voter living in California has the opportunity to vote in support or in opposition for the proposition. Before going out and voting voters should be fully informed about everything in the ballot. So what is proposition 53? It is voters approval requirement for revenue bonds above $2 billion.

10, October. "No on Proposition 35." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 10 Oct. 2012. Web. 03 Apr.

Chapter six of the book Flawed Criminal justice Policies talks strictly about the three strike laws and what are the consequences of such laws placed on american society. The easiest explanation of three strike laws is that by the third felony that individual have committed the prison sentence has to be significantly longer than otherwise would be mandated. Which means that sentences for three strikers would be from 25 years of incarceration, to life in prison.

In essence, California’s Three Strikes Law, is a good idea. There should be firm rules that dictate convictions for various crimes. However, the three strikes law is too broad, “And anyone convicted of a third offense --- and the definition of a third offense included everything imaginable --- would run out of chances entirely and serve a mandatory sentence of twenty-five years to life. There were no exceptions or loopholes” (297). If someone has committed an offense that could be seen as a “gateway offense” such as, beating your wife could lead to killing her once the man gets out of jail, then this rule is applicable. A man or woman stealing a loaf of bread is not a crime worthy of a life sentence. Discretion needs to be used, and if the

You and I and most of the citizens in the United States uphold the law or commit no violations of the law even though there may be exculpatory evidence or reason that when these violations do occur that the act may be justified. We have all heard at one point or another the within our criminal justice careers that ignorance of the law is no excuse, with this being the case then the same can be said when a defendant is given three chances to to live their lives right and possibly become a productive member of society, the three strikes law opponents argument is that the punishment itself is harsh particularly on the third offense even though the violator was given two tries beforehand. As for me I do not think that the three strikes laws can

sometimes even life in prison this trend is good because most times it will keep repeat offenders from committing crimes I guess the thought of getting that third strike and going to prison for possibly life would be a really strong motivation to stay out of trouble and keep doing good. Then again this three strikes law could not be a good thing for instance in the text it talks about jerry Williams who had a record of two prior felony convictions involving violence when he stole piece of pizza without a weapon from four children, then the judge under mandatory California law, had to sentence Williams to twenty five years in prison. I understand this man had a record and was on the verge of the third strike but I don’t think that sentencing Mr. Williams to twenty five years in prison for a pizza was really necessary that five dollar pizza now has cost the state an estimated 500,000 for the time that Williams is going to be incarcerated a simply being locked up for even a year in county would I think be more suitable and cost friendly in

To further help reduce the likelihood of recidivism among previously convicted individuals, the justice department of the United States government in conjunction with willing state governments, has implemented the policy of progressively more severe punishments. Known as the system of “strikes” as Vogel (2003, p.32) writes, “the system punishes each subsequent crime for which one is convicted more severely than the last even if the crimes are the same, with the third strike earning an offender anything between 25 years in prison or life sentence depending on the gravity of the offence”. Such policies have helped reduce the incentives for individuals to engage in criminal acts with Zagar, Grove and Busch (2013, p.390) pointing out that, the Three Strikes Law in California, since its introduction, has reduced the rates of recidivism by as much as 22% and saved the state billions that would have incurred in such subsequent incarcerations. Certain states also have parole policies that bar parolees from associating with other convicted felons and engaging in crimes and transgression. Such policies, upon violation of parole conditions, prescribe the forfeiture of an individual’s parole and completion of the sentence for which they were paroled and any other sentence that may be handed to them for whichever other offence they commit.