Three Strike Law Research Paper

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,

Throughout the years, there has been much controversy weather The Three Strike Law is cruel and unjust. Was the intent to get violent repeat officers incarcerated for a long period, or to get all offenders with three strikes off the streets? Within hours, after the law went into effect California had its first offender, arrested while attempting to a steal a car radio and two nonviolent burglaries on his record, a homeless schizophrenic, Lester Wallace, sentenced to twenty-five years. He has been sexually and physically attacked, suffered seizures, developed back problems, and end- stage renal disease. Although within months California reformed the law, the state wont released this dying man. Curtis Wilkerson strolled into a department store,

In March 1994, California voted to pass the Three Strikes Law with the majority of the vote, a bill that had been struck down multiple times by the state legislature (Naomi Harlin Goodno). This law would allow criminals with two prior felonies on their records to receive life in prison. These laws were proposed to keep serious repeat offenders off the streets, this was a result of the rising crime rate of the nineties. The law was presented to the electorate as a way to keep rapists, child molesters and killers of the streets, the most incorrigible of inmates; however, it has been proven that such laws unproportionally target minorities and persons with mental illnesses. African Americans are incarcerated at a rate thirteen times higher than

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.

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

Reynold had the best intentions with he created the three strikes law after his daughter Kimbers death. He wanted to make sure that what happened to Kimber would never happen to someone else. Even though Reynolds had the best intentions when he was making this law, it ended up doing more harm than good. This makes me think of all the times I tried to do something or for someone with the best intentions and it ended up going really badly. Sometimes we end up so emotional that we try to do good things but don't necessarily think of the entire outcome. Reynolds three strikes law ended up on the u-curve but on the right side. He ended up knowing more about his daughter's death then he could have handled. How much of something can we really handel? We always think the more we know the better. The more knowledge we consume the better off we are. Reynolds proved this wrong, he knew so much about Kimbers death that it drove him emotionally crazy. He ended up ruining his

Three strike laws carry a lot of negative effects, and statistics. Starting with the limited utility that this law provides, many experts of criminal justice system, stated that even if such law seem ok in our eyes, it carry a lot of problems for the justice system. In last Chapter;

The benefit of having the The Three Strike Law is that it cause a deterrence effect on the felons. A deterrent effect is stopping people from committing crimes or doing something wrong because they know the consequences of it. Additionally

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.

Furthermore, this movement against the severity of fixed sentencing is associated with the mandatory ‘strike laws’ as seen in California (Dansky 2008: 23) leading to overpopulation of prison as upon third offence offenders are sentenced to either: 1) a sentence greater than twenty-five years; 2) three times the sentence time of the charged felony; or 3) the time of the felony plus additional enhancements of

My opinion on the 'One Punch Law' is if you have the intentions to serious hurt someone with a 'one punch attack' you should be punished harshly for such a careless and cowardly act. Furthermore, I believe if people have the negative morales and want to intentionally hurt someone they should have no place in today's society, as we the community don't want these type of people roaming our

According to the Portland State University (2012), the three strikes law means that a person convicted of three or more serious crimes can receive a life sentence, usually with the possibility of parole. The purpose of this law is to increase the prison sentence for those who repeat serious offenses. In addition, it is assumed that this law would deter criminals from committing further felonies once they have been convicted once or twice. In the United States, this law has been adopted in 1995 under the assumption that its adoption would help in the fight against violent crime and serious drug offenses.

The Three Strikes laws is a law that was first employed in the 1990’s and was established due to the public's dissatisfaction with other laws that were not reducing crime. In 2012 legislators finally realized that the Three Strikes law was not doing what it was intended to do and revised it to impose life sentences to the most violently dangerous criminals. The law allows for a person to be sentenced to prison for 25 years to life after their third strike. Prior to 2012 all crimes committed by criminals were considered under the three strikes. It suggested that if a criminal had two strikes and committed a minor crime they would receive the same punishment for the petty offense as the person accused of a major crime? For many years

Essentially, three strikes laws were implemented as a means to effect crime in two ways. First, as a means of incapacitation, by extending sentences to remove repeat offenders from society for long periods of time to restrict their ability to commit crime (Dickey & Hollenhorst, 1999). Second, as a means of deterrence, by threatening longer sentences that would dissuade offenders from engaging in new crimes (Brown & Jolivette, 2005). Three strikes laws became widespread in 1993 when Washington became the first state to