Three Strikes Law

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

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,

These are the people hardest hit by this law. According Carter, before the three strikes law was enacted it had been estimated that to keep up with the growing prison population on a national level that it was necessary to spend $100,000,000 per week on our prison system (1). Now that we will be having more and more criminals behind bars we shall have to spend even more money building and keeping up our overcrowded prisons. Of these people that taxpayers are paying to imprison Carter suggests that as many as 80% will be non-violent offenders (3). So far 80% of the second and third strike offenses have been for non-violent crimes, most of these being drug offenses (3-4). There have only been only 53 people with second and third strike convictions for rape, murder, and kidnapping (1). This law's lack of effectiveness clearly does not warrant its huge price. It is difficult see how society can justify sending a drug addict to prison for 25 years at a cost of $20,000 per year when the money could be used to fund drug rehabilitation centers and alternative programs for our youth. Most drug users are not in need prison, they are in need of help for their addictions. If a fraction of the money it would cost to imprison them is put toward drug rehabilitation programs it would save the state money, while at the same time helping the individual. The three strikes legislation is directly aimed at violent crime, but its track record has shown that it has missed the mark by a long

The three strikes law is a law that was originally proposed in California in 1994 from the state of Washington. This law was created under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The purpose of three strike law is to convict prior felons who commit any new felonies to be sentenced to twice the term then what the original crime is usually served for. The main purpose of the three strikes law was also to increase the defendant’s sentence to prevent them from early release and committing further crimes in the communities.

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.

Bjerk posits that arrestees under three-strikes laws often avoid their third strike and instead get prosecuted for lesser charges. Bjerk suggests this may be the result of prosecutorial discretion but could also be the result of other’s attitudes and actions. Discuss changes in criminal, police, judge, jury, and defense attorney behavior that might impact the avoidance of mandatory minimum sentences.

In the early 1990’s, numerous states began implementing criminal statutes that mandated increased sentences for repeat offenders of serious crimes; we know this as the “three strikes law." States implement three strike laws to ensure that repeat offenders are constantly imprisoned. The logic is that while a criminal is in prison he or she can’t be out in public hurting anyone. Since three strikes laws apply to defendants who commit multiple crimes in succession, these laws aim to keep criminals that are most likely to re-offend in prison. As a matter of fact, by 2012 more than half the states and the federal government enacted three strikes laws. The states which carry three strikes or habitual offender laws are: Arizona, Arkansas, California,

This involved of a very detailed outline of my HCP essay about my new topic on Three Strikes law in New Mexico. It has concepts that is associated with what define Three Strikes Law in New Mexico and some examples what led the Three Strikes law to be passed in 1994 and some of the argument points that helped me to reinforce my evidences in my paper. This helped me a lot to create a good multi-modal composition project.

It is hard if not impossible to justify using a person as a means of promoting some good if doing so will harm him (Walen, 2016, p.741), I think the punishment of the three strikes law is extremely excessive for non-violent crimes. The Three Strikes statue provides for mandatory life imprisonment if a convicted felon has been convicted for a serious violent felony. Most repeat offenders are not discouraged from committing violent acts of crime and because of this reason the habitual sentencing does not work as a

A Sociologist would say that if we do not have to confirm with one aspect of religion and how one shall live. We have the right to choose. However, you get what you put out. Your higher power will be who you choose, but Gods plan for cultivating and caring for creation and our fellow neighbor should be what all people should feel and want to do. Some form of that has been lost in our society. We have fallen into a world of I and not us, we have lost the path that was in the divine plan for each and every one of us. We abuse each other verbally, physically, we neglect those who have less and outcast them from our society, we ignore calls and signs for help. We fall prey to misguidance, yet we look for a higher God after the fact. I would say

Chapter six of the book Flawed Criminal justice Policies talks strictly about the three strike laws and what are the consequences of such laws placed on american society. The easiest explanation of three strike laws is that by the third felony that individual have committed the prison sentence has to be significantly longer than otherwise would be mandated. Which means that sentences for three strikers would be from 25 years of incarceration, to life in prison.

Zimring (1996) illustrates the inconsistency with which three strikes laws have been applied, producing unjustifiable differences in sentences for individuals with very similar criminal histories. Even more importantly, Zimring's comparison illustrates that the three strikes law in question is typically applied without any objective principle of justice or justification in terms of the acceptable purposes of penal laws. In California and elsewhere, three strikes laws sometimes result in life sentences for individuals whose crimes do not pose sufficient threat to others or to society to justify lifetime incarceration. The principal problem with these three strikes laws is that do not provide the necessary mechanisms or criteria to ensure that they do not produce unintended and unjustifiable results for specific individuals or unintentionally and unjustifiably different sentences for individuals who are guilty of identical conduct, as explained by Zimring (1996).

When I started wrapping up the research for the paper I decided to use the Social Sciences Citation Index to find a few more articles that had not shown up in my other searches. I returned to the basic search of "three strikes laws" and used an article published in March of 2014 called "In the Furtherance of Justice, Injustice, or Both? A Multilevel Analysis of Courtroom Context and the Implementation of Three Strikes". I used the citied list hyperlink to find several other articles that helped me finalize my paper.

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