Three Strikes Law In Texas

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.

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.

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.

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).

Since the policy was enacted in the early 1990s, three strikes laws have been one of the most controversial issues facing the American criminal justice system. In general, advocates believe that locking up criminals will protect society. Critics believe that three-strike policy can only be effective with offenders that are on their last strikes (Worrall, 2008). However, other critics explain how three-strike laws don’t significantly reduce crime because most criminals mature out of the criminal lifestyle (Worrall, 2004).

In retrospect, should the three strikes law in Texas be amended or abolished? There is an on-going problem that our society faces, and that is prison over-population. According to The Texas Tribune, as of August 2016, there are 143,252 inmates in the Texas prison system. Would an abolishment of the three strikes rule help to alleviate the over-population of Texas prisons? California felt it important enough to take a look at their policy and amended it, should Texas do the same? Many will argue that if an individual commits a third felony that they should be incarcerated for life as they are a menace to society and not helping that community to evolve and become better. The three strikes law is something that can always be argued for

Numerous amounts of research has been conducted on the effectiveness of the three strikes sentencing policy, one of the more thorough ones to come along examined three strikes policy throughout the United States and came an interesting conclusion about the effectiveness of three strikes sentencing laws. The study found three strikes law to be ineffective in reducing crime in a variety of areas. The study found that rarely are they concerned with being caught for their crime, this was further attributed by the fact that a great deal

This criminal code is one of the most sophisticated in the country and has become a model for other states to follow. But research studies conducted to compare effects of the death penalty nationwide have shown some conflicting results. Comparison studies done to show homicide rates of retentionist and abolitionist jurisdictions from 1999 to 2001 (Sorenson & Pilgrim) have shown that death penalty states tend to have a higher murder rate than abolitionist states. This result creates the argument of the overall deterrent effect of execution. Texas is still in the top 20 of states with the highest homicide rate even though it is the highest in death penalty executions. “If the death penalty were a deterrent, the argument goes, then Texas should be located among those states with the lowest homicide rates” (Sorenson & Pilgrim, P. 25).

One more pro on the affirmative side is that is helps out the justice system. Let’s admit it, our justice system is not perfect and will probably never be perfect. Like everything else it has its flaws.” The Three Strikes Law is a way to provide fix for the flaws of our justice system

The "three strike law" increases the prison sentence of an individual convicted of a felony who has been previously convicted of two or more felonies, and limits the offender to receive anything but a punishment of a life sentence. Twenty-six of the fifty states implement laws that meet the same criteria that would be considered as a " three strike" law. This law was designed to keep those more likely to commit another crime out of the general public however, decrease in violent crimes after this law was implemented is opposing. This essay brings reflection upon how justifiable the third strike rule is.

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,

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.