Three Strikes Laws

Other punitive measures, that have developed out of the just deserts mentality, such as three-strikes laws, which required life sentences for those with three convictions, as well as Scared Straight programs and boot camps, have negligible or detrimental effects to recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Studies have repeatedly shown that long prison sentences and lack of rehabilitation actually increases the likelihood of reoffending (Canadian Civil Liberties Association [CCLA], 2011). While using punitive measures in the name of retribution may make those in society feel safe, there is no evidence to support this approach.

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).

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).

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 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.

assault and auto theft…” (Gupta). The three- strikes law prevents repeat felony offenders from receiving anything other than a life sentence, even if the crimes committed are not at all related. Drug users who are arrested multiple times can spend their lives in prison for having an addiction. This does not drive the rate of crime down, but only inflates the prison population for longer periods of time.

Between 1993 and 1995, twenty four states enacted three strikes sentencing policy which calls for much harsher sentencing of repeat felony offender. Most sentences for these repeat offender called for a minimum punishment of a life sentence with possibility of release until twenty five years have been served (1 Marvell, Moody 89). These laws where created to target and punish what lawmakers believed to be the small percentage of criminals that where committing the majority of serious crimes such as murder, rape, kidnaping, aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and sexual abuse.

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

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

There are many criminal justice policies that have been implemented over the years. There have also been policies put in place that is designed to enhance or clarify existing policies. Policies that are written and implemented cover a variety of different area in the criminal justice domain. Policies also are in place to provide protection to victims, the accused, and the officers involved in cases. There are many times when a criminal justice policy is made as a knee-jerk type reaction to either public scrutiny or even political gain. In this paper, the Texas three-strike law will be looked upon determining whether this policy still holds up in the world in which we currently

United States throughout history has tried many different ways to deter criminals from committing crime. One of the more famous polices enforced was the Three Strikes sentencing laws, and other “get tough” approaches. In 1994, the Three Strikes sentencing law was first established (Couzens, J. Richards and Tricia A. Bigelow). The law stated that any defendant convicted of any new felony, having been convicted before of a serious felony to be sentenced to state prison for twice the term otherwise given for the crime. If the defendant was convicted of any felony with two or more prior strikes, the law mandated a state prison term of at least 25 years to life (Couzens, J. Richards and Tricia A. Bigelow). In California and Washington, the three strike law was adopted and in both states showed contradictive results. It has become a very controversial form of deterrence and is widely debated if the three strikes sentencing laws actually deter criminals from committing crimes.

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,

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.

     We are pretty successful with achieving the purposes of the criminal law. Criminal law keeps everyday Americans safe and gets many bad guys of the streets as possible but the three strikes law is drastic. It definitely seems like an affective deterrent but the sentencing is unbelievable especially, if it’s not a serious crime. “The prison