Why New Mexico Adopted A Three Strikes Law, Who Influenced Them And How?

The state of Washington passed the first three strikes law in 1993. Anyone convicted of three separate violent felonies must be sentenced to life in prison without a chance for parole. Then on March 8th, 1994, California followed by enacting the law that sanctioned a sentence of 25 years to life for a third felony conviction. Contrary to Washington, the California law counts nonviolent felonies, such as burglary and theft as “strike” offences; by 2001, over 50,000 criminals had been penalized under the new law, far more than any other state, with almost a quarter of the prisoners facing a minimum of 25 years

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 strike law was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 2015. Some individuals arrested under it have been realised. However, during its existence, it had made the building of 20 new federal prisons necessary.

Many states already had a habitual felon law on their books, where as if an offender were convicted of two or more offenses, he or she would receive a harsher prison sentence (Stolzenberg & Alessio, 1997). The difference between the three strikes law and habitual felon law is that the three strikes law takes discretion from the judicial officers, i.e. prosecutors and judges. Three strikes laws were

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.

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,

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 the early 1990s, in an effort to decrease crime states decided that mandatory sentencing laws for repeat criminal offenders would be a good idea. As a result, several states created statutes that would require these sentences to be implemented when an offender committed a third offense; which has come to be known as “three strikes laws.” On the surface, this law seemed like good public policy; however, critics believe the sentences are not only disproportionate to the crimes that would send a criminal to jail for 25 years to life, but it would also cause the costs to house these criminals to skyrocket.(Shoener, 2015)

2. Yes, there has been one article I found that is current event about my topic since the HCP. One of the sources that might be help for me to identify the potential policy solution is “Governor Martinez: New Mexico needs tougher ‘three strikes’ law” article, and “How do we fix our Prisons” by Merilee article. These two articles are going to be helpful for me to find two policy proposal solutions. In the article “New Mexico needs tougher ‘three strikes’ law,” Susana

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

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.

The state of California has the third largest prison system in the world and the largest in the United States. To understand how California got to this point in prison reform, you have to go back as far as 1994 when Proposition 184 was approved by voters with a 72% majority vote. Proposition 184 was the strictest "three strikes" sentencing law in the United States, which doubled the penalty for a second felony if the first one was serious or violent and carried a mandatory prison sentence of 25 years to life for a third felony (Greenwood, 1994). California went a step further by being one of the only states where the third felony did not have to be a serious or violent crime to count. The expansion of the three–strikes legislation

The Three Strikes Initiative is a proposition that should be passed in this year’s ballot voting. If passed, the proposition would serve of good use to the country and its citizens. Not to mention that it could even soften or diminish the severity of the Three Strikes Law. The Three Strikes Initiative is a proposition that will discard or overlook not so serious or violent felonies

In contrast, the Washington law was enacted in December of 1993. Additionally, the penalties for a third-strike varies. In the Washington statute, all three strikes must be for felonies that are specifically listed in the legislation. Moreover, there is no second strike provision in the Washington statute. The Washington Three Strike law statute requires a life term in prison without the possibility of parole for a person convicted for the third time of any of the serious crimes listed in the