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. It was presented to the public as a solution for only the most incorrigible of inmates. The difference between this time and every other time before it was only months prior that a 12 year old girl, Polly Klaas was abducted from a slumber party and brutally murdered. Her murderer had been previously convicted of sexual assault, …show more content…
He was so inept that he was in the passenger seat of the car when he was discovered by the police, just nine hours after the law was passed. He was sentenced to twenty five years to life in prison. When Wallace joined the system, he was targeted immediately. He has suffered from countless physical and sexual attacks. He has since been put into protective custody. Over the years he has developed seizures and severe back problems, forcing him to walk with a cane. A few years ago, Lester developed end-stage renal disease and pleaded with the state to be released. Even though the law has since changed to include a provision requiring one of the felonies to be violent, which would invalidate Lester’s sentence, the parole board declined a hearing. Leonardo Andrade was a thirty seven year old father of three. He served his country in the Army, he had never committed a violent offense, but due to his priors of petty theft, Leandro was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole for fifty years for stealing $153 worth of VHS tapes for his children (Erwin Chemerinsky). Gary Ewing, terminally ill with AIDS and blind in one eye (Matt Taibbi) received life in prison without possibility of parole for twenty five years for stealing three golf clubs (Chemerinsky), he died in prison a year later. In the same state, California, the maximum penalty for rape is just eight years in prison. Only eleven years for manslaughter and fifteen for second-degree murder. The eighth amendment to our constitution claims to protect us from cruel and unusual punishment; however in 2003, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that these laws weren’t an infringement upon our rights as citizens, that life in prison for stealing children’s movies in golf
Christopher Simmons was charged with burglary and the murder of Shirley Crook. He and his two friends plotted to break into her home rob and murder her. One of his friends decided not to go through with the plot, but his other friend helped. They went in the middle of the night into her home bound her and threw her over the bridge. At trial with the evidence, videotaped confession from Simmons, and the testimony against him from his friend proving that it was a premeditated plan the jury recommended a death sentence. He appealed his case with counsel and felt his past history of a clean record and his troubled background should have been a factor in the sentencing. Simmons’s case worked its way to the courts and it was eventually overturned. According to Birckhead (2008), “With its decision in Roper v. Simmons,11 invalidating the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were younger than eighteen when their crimes were committed,12 the Court has, perhaps, heralded yet another shift in the perspective of the legal system-and the culture at large-towards adolescents who commit crimes”(p.389). The Supreme Court ruled that the punishment now violates the Eighth Amendment 's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, they sentenced Simmons to life imprisonment without parole.
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.
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).
Within the last four decades, the rate of incarceration in the United States has continued to increase exponentially. The Bureau of Justice reports that the inmate population in 1971 was estimated at two hundred thousand, while the current number stands at roughly 1.5 million – nearly eight times more than the number of inmates in 1971. Because of the high costs associated with prison operations, their overcrowding, and wrongful convictions, California introduced legislative measures such as Propositions 36 and 47 as well as Assembly Bills 109 and 117, in order to lessen the number of incarcerations. Not only will implementing these reforms save the state millions in revenue, they will also rightfully place truly dangerous criminals in
On March 7, 1994, Governor Pete Wilson signed the Three Strikes into a Law (Jones).
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,
If local officials were notified that there was a young homeless teen with psychiatric problems roaming the streets maybe this incident could have been prevented. Trina was traumatized by the boys’ death The mother and prosecutor argued that Trina had an intend to killed the young boys. If Trina lawyer had paperwork to prove Trina’s psychological incompetence the courts could’ve dropped the case or have it moved to juvenile court. Leaving Trina eligible to be given the harshest sentence available. Trina was given a life sentence for an unintended crime illustrated the inequality of the justice system
The defendant Gary Ewing was a multiple offender of several crimes from grand theft auto to drug possession.. On December 9, 1993, Ewing was arrested on the premises of a apartment complex for trespassing and lying to a police officer. After his conviction of first-degree robbery and three counts of residential burglary,Ewing was sentenced to nine years and eight months in prison. On parole from a nine year sentence he entered into El Segundo golf course store empty handed but left with a pants leg full of merchandise. After the police was notified by the the store employee Ewing was arrested before even leaving the premises. When arrested three golf clubs each priced at $399 was confiscated from him so he was convicted of one count of felony grand theft of personal property in excess of $400. The trial court found as a newly convicted felon with two or more “serious” or “violent” felony convictions in his past, Ewing was sentenced to 25 years to life. In examining Ewing 's claim that his sentence is grossly disproportionate, the gravity of the offense must be compared to the harshness of the penalty.. The California Supreme Court has noted that crime 's seriousness in the context of
On an everyday basis, how is the three strikes law affecting people in New Mexico? The three strikes law is one of the most modernized laws in the criminal justice system of the United States, where it has been created in the efforts to reduce and prevent crimes in the states especially for required sentencing laws for repeat criminal offenders. In 2003, more than half of the United States had adopted the three strikes law; in addition, the law is raised when criminals have committed their third felonies. Therefore, these laws execute a harsher penalty of a minimum of 25 years of a life sentence for criminals who have committed a crime for the third time even though their crimes that are not evil. There were many arguments raised when many of the criminals were sent to prison for 25 years for a very small crime such as petty theft. Many of the people in the United States argued that a 25 year prison is very similar to the punishment for committing murder. In 2013, according to The Washington Times Newspaper by associated press, Santa Fe, N.M. (AP) house majority leader Nate Gentry argues that “New Mexico is the second most dangerous state in the nation as far as violent crime goes” (press). This is the result based on the 24/7 Wall Street data; therefore, Gentry also said that it is one of the most dangerous place to be a child because many children are getting affected by the crimes they are seeing from their perspective. For the last few years, three strikes law has
Only May 30 1969, sixteen-year-old David Milgaard was falsely convicted for the murder of Gail Miller. He was sentenced a life imprisonment for someone else’s crime. His friends turning on him due to drugs, police failing to look into statements and lies for money all lead to Milgaard being sentenced to a life imprisonment.
Travis Williams 2/14/17 Policy Description Dr. Dillard The Three strikes policy is a criminal policy that increases sentences times for repeat offenders, usually after three serious crimes are committed. In the early 1990s, states began issuing mandatory sentencing laws for repeat criminal offenders. This policy came to be known as "three strikes laws," the name was given because it was applied when offenders committed their third offense. By 2003 more than half the states including the federal government had enforced the three strikes laws.
. 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.