The Psychology Of Public Support For Punishing Rule Essay

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

The United States prison population has grown seven-fold over the past forty years, and many Americans today tend to believe that the high levels of incarceration in our country stem from factors such as racism, socioeconomic differences, and drugs. While these factors have contributed to the incarceration rate present in our country today, I argue that the most important reason our country has such a high incarceration rate is the policy changes that have occurred since the 1970s. During this time, the United States has enacted policy changes that have produced an astounding rise in the use of imprisonment for social control. These policy changes were enacted in order to achieve greater consistency, certainty, and severity and include sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three strikes laws (National Research Council 2014). Furthermore, I argue that mandatory sentencing has had the most significant effect on the incarceration rate.

This paper looks at some of the problems with the three strikes legislation and how it affects different parties such as nonviolent offenders, the department of corrections system, the court system, and the public in general.

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 state of Washington passed the first three strikes law in 1993. Anyone convicted of three separate violent felonies must be sentenced to life in prison without a chance for parole. Then on March 8th, 1994, California followed by enacting the law that sanctioned a sentence of 25 years to life for a third felony conviction. Contrary to Washington, the California law counts nonviolent felonies, such as burglary and theft as “strike” offences; by 2001, over 50,000 criminals had been penalized under the new law, far more than any other state, with almost a quarter of the prisoners facing a minimum of 25 years

This paper looks at some of the problems with the three strikes legislation and how it affects different parties such as nonviolent offenders, the department of corrections system, the court system, and the public in general.

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).

We live in a world of laws, statutes, and regulations. This society has to enforce all of it in order to keep this country from going into complete chaos. Some laws can cause a large amount of controversy and debate over it. Specifically speaking, the Three Strikes and You’re Out Law. This one law has many people arguing for and against it. Statements from many saying that it is unjust and unfair, while others say that is what our society needs in order to keep this world safe from those career criminals. I strongly agree with the Three Strikes Law; although, the law should be altered in order for fit the different situations of individuals.

What are some of the reasons why New Mexico adopted a three strikes law, who influenced them and how?

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,

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 contrast, the Washington law was enacted in December of 1993. Additionally, the penalties for a third-strike varies. In the Washington statute, all three strikes must be for felonies that are specifically listed in the legislation. Moreover, there is no second strike provision in the Washington statute. The Washington Three Strike law statute requires a life term in prison without the possibility of parole for a person convicted for the third time of any of the serious crimes listed in the

The three strikes law came out of the “get tough” era in the late 70’s. The era was based on the idea that crime is the result of an offender’s choice’s and personal responsibility. During this time, the criminal justice system focused on punishment instead of rehabilitation, as the government switched to determinate based, or individualized sentencing where conviction was served in a jail or prison with a defined length of sentence, and can not be changed by a parole board or other agency. It was fair and just sentences based on the crime committed and its severity. The three strikes law was a policy that was started in Washington in 1993, and Governor Pete Wilson adopted a broader version of it in California that requires a criminal to serve a sentence of twenty-five years to life after they have been caught and convicted of a third felony. There are a total of twenty-three states and the federal government who have adopted some for of the three strikes policy. The policy varies by each state and what crimes fall under felonies is the states discretion. For example, in Georgia, it only requires two violent felony convictions instead of three. In other states, it does not have to be a violent crime to be sent away for twenty-five to life. Different influences can lead to these types of policies. Public opinion and moral outrage are some of the ways that a policy can come about. Three

The message sent to criminals is if you commit two felonies your skating on thin ice. It has also provided a solution for a flawed system of habitual offenders with no severe repercussions. The law states that it has to be three convictions not three crimes. So in reality criminals could get away with numerous incidents before actually being convicted. The media tends to distort the true effectiveness of the three strike laws by only providing information on cases that have been controversial due to a criminal being convicted to life in prison for stealing a car or forging checks (Balanced Politics). These are victimless crimes but what people tend to forget is that these criminals didn't receive life in prison for the last offense. They received this sentence due to the accumulation of the other offenses as well. This is what the media does not portray and the general population seems to forget when voicing their opinion by

Zimring (1996) illustrates the inconsistency with which three strikes laws have been applied, producing unjustifiable differences in sentences for individuals with very similar criminal histories. Even more importantly, Zimring's comparison illustrates that the three strikes law in question is typically applied without any objective principle of justice or justification in terms of the acceptable purposes of penal laws. In California and elsewhere, three strikes laws sometimes result in life sentences for individuals whose crimes do not pose sufficient threat to others or to society to justify lifetime incarceration. The principal problem with these three strikes laws is that do not provide the necessary mechanisms or criteria to ensure that they do not produce unintended and unjustifiable results for specific individuals or unintentionally and unjustifiably different sentences for individuals who are guilty of identical conduct, as explained by Zimring (1996).