Three Strikes Law

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

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform says, “The Three Strikes Reform Act is tough on crime without being tough on taxpayers. It will put a stop to needlessly wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayers’ hard-earned money, while protecting people from violent crime.” The California Legislative Analyst Office estimates that the state could potentially save over $90 million annually. Rather than being used to needlessly detain petty offenders, proponents of Prop 36 argue that the money saved could be used to fund schools and preventative efforts instead.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office information guide, “ The Three Strikes and You're Out Law,” the purpose the Three Strikes Law is to enhance the sentences of really dangerous criminals like rapists, murderers, and many other crimes. This law has led to fewer guilty pleas, increase in jury trials, and to a “reduction in crimes committed by repeat offenders incarcerated for longer periods during its provisions, thus resulting in savings to local and state governments,” (The Three Strikes and You're Out Law). Susan Fisher states that proposition “ 57 effectively overturns key provisions of Mercy’s Law, 3 Strikes and You're Out, Victims Bill of Rights, Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act - measures enacted by voters that has protected victims and made communities safer, ” (Proposition 57 Voter Information Guide). The purpose of the Three Strikes Law is also to prevent recidivism. Many people, however, have questioned the effectiveness of this law, especially since this law has increased the populations in some prisons, especially those in California, as stated in the article, “Three Strikes Sentencing Law.” However, the Legislative Analyst’s Office guide states that “ the number of inmates sent to prison under the Three Strikes law will be less than it originally projected,” (The Three Strikes and You're Out Law). Although it is criticized for keeping more criminals

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,

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

Washington state passed the three strikes law policy first in 1993. Any individual convicted of three separate violent felonies was to be sentenced to life in prison with no opportunity for Parole. In 1994, The state of California followed by enforcing a three strikes law that required a minimum sentence of 25 years to life for a third felony conviction. Washington and California differed in the interpretation of felonies the California law considered nonviolent felonies, such as theft and burglary as a "strike" offenses. By 2001 California had over 50,000 criminals sentenced under the new “ Three Strokes Policy” more than any other state in the United States.

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

The Three Strikes Law has been a subject of much debate since its introduction as a regulation in 1993. The Three Strikes law was enacted in 1994 and is widely recognized as the harshest sentencing law in the United States. “The State of Texas was the first State to enact such a law in 1974.” (Laws.com) California passed its own law enacting a Three Strikes Law that mandates a sentence of 25 years to life for a third felony conviction. The reality of the Three Strikes Law will lead to a significant increase in the nation's

. 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.

The three strikes laws are different from state to state as each has its own variation of this law. The purpose of

The criminal justice issue that has been chosen as the topic on this course project is the “three strike” sentencing and how it should be abolished. The three strike sentencing was established in 1994 under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. (Harris, 1995). In this act, the statute of three strike sentencing provides a mandatory life imprisonment sentence for convicted felons that have been convicted in a federal court for a serious

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.