The Three-Strike Law: The Purpose of Sentencing

The 3 Strikes Crime Law gives court system all across the nation unwavering power to inflict harsh sentencing laws on non-violent criminals. The 8th Amendment protects people from being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, however, the 3 Strikes Crime Law allows States Courts to punish non-violent criminals just as severely as violent criminals. Many criminals with non-violent, non-serious crimes who have been sentenced under the harsh 3 Strikes Crime Law have appealed their cases and were denied reevaluation by the Supreme Court. The 3 Strikes Crime Law allows the court system to punish criminals based off of the amount of crimes they have committed, rather than the severity. When considering who this law affects it can be extremely unnerving, and often seems cruel.

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.

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.

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.

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

The three strike law was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 2015. Some individuals arrested under it have been realised. However, during its existence, it had made the building of 20 new federal prisons necessary.

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).

Many states already had a habitual felon law on their books, where as if an offender were convicted of two or more offenses, he or she would receive a harsher prison sentence (Stolzenberg & Alessio, 1997). The difference between the three strikes law and habitual felon law is that the three strikes law takes discretion from the judicial officers, i.e. prosecutors and judges. Three strikes laws were

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.

The California’s Three Strikes Law was an act that came into place under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The law was enacted to help deal with violent repeat offenders. The essence of three strikes law was to require a defendant convicted of any new felony, suffered prior convictions of a serious felony to be sentenced to state prison. In this paper I will discuss the three strikes laws adding to prison overcrowding, does it targets non-violent offenders, and are these laws a deterrent. America’s incarceration addiction grew during the late 1980s and early 1990s, as state and local government passed the “three strikes” law called for mandatory sentencing of repeat offenders. California's "three strikes and you're

It is supposed to keep people from committing crime and if so they do, they are punished with longer sentencing. . Conclusion: In conclusion, the Three Strikes Laws should be kept and used in other states that do not already have them.

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,

There are also constitutional issues with three-strikes. The most obvious being that the law is a form a cruel and unusual punishment. Under the law, someone like Albert would face life in prison at age seventeen; life imprisonment for a seventeen-year-old seems cruel and unusual by most standards, making three-strikes-and-you're-out unconstitutional. The principle of proportionality that the punishment should not be more than is merited by the crime is also violated. Three-strikes also violates the principle of punishment for specific offenses. The government can only punish criminals for specific crimes they commit. Three-strikes, on the other hand, does not punish for a specific crime but instead establishes an arbitrary standard that judges the person. It does not punish a criminal for specific offenses but for general past behavior. The last constitutional difficulty with this law is that it violates separation of powers by putting sentencing jurisdiction in the hands of the prosecutor.

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 criminal justice system is an essential aspect of American society as well as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The purpose of laws is to protect society from harm, ensure everyone’s safety, and equally treated. The criminal justice system works to protect the innocent and punish the guilty without violating the rights the criminal suspect to avoid any injustices. As society evolves the criminal justice system needs to evolve so it is important to create new laws to keep up with the evolution and new trends. As new trends and contemporary issues develop in society, they can have a direct impact on the different functions of the criminal justice