Bjerk's Three Strikes Law

Brown, Brian, and Greg Jolivette. "A Primer: Three Strikes - The Impact After More Than a Decade." Legislative Analyst’s Office. Web. October 2005.

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

Travis Williams 2/14/17 Policy Description Dr. Dillard The Three strikes policy is a criminal policy that increases sentences times for repeat offenders, usually after three serious crimes are committed. In the early 1990s, states began issuing mandatory sentencing laws for repeat criminal offenders. This policy came to be known as "three strikes laws," the name was given because it was applied when offenders committed their third offense. By 2003 more than half the states including the federal government had enforced the three strikes laws.

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 and you’re out” law is in effect in different states around the country. In basic terms, the law requires that any offender that is convicted of three violent crimes must receive a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. The law is aimed at reducing crime by focusing on the small percentage of criminals that commit the majority of violent crimes and felonies. Many systems have been lenient with repeat offenders, allowing

Two violations of three-strike laws are a form of the habitual offender statute. A habitual offender

In the article “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: A Failed Policy,” the author highlights how mandatory minimum sentencing is a policy that has failed in attempt to put an end to drug crimes. Batey stated that the attempts of federal and state thought that they could “get tough on crime,” particularly drug offense, by eliminating the sentence discretion of judges and restoring it with long minimum sentences that applied regardless of defendant's individual circumstances (Batey 24). Moreover, the mandatory minimum sentences take authority away from the judge and give it to the prosecutor, who decides whether to charge the defendant with a crime carrying a long minimum sentence or much less offense. Withal, mandatory minimum sentences have failed due to giving America’s power too much power in plea bargaining, an imbalance that has led to the incarceration of persons too fearful to insist on a hearing that might have released them (Batey 25). Finally, Batey mentions that mandatory minimum sentence policy has filled prisons with the wrong people, which are minor players, not drug kingpins, and even some who are innocent (Batey 25).

The three strikes law in California stipulates that your first two "strikes" are acquired when you commit two serious or violent felonies. However the third strike can be any type of felony, violent or nonviolent (Schafer, 1999). For this reason, more and more criminals are being put away, especially in California, for third strikes that are nonviolent and relatively small crimes and overcrowding our prisons at a fast rate.

The mandatory minimum sentencing is about a fixed ruling of a crime that a judge is expected to deliver. Congress has enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws. It was to impose the mandatory sentencing an offender would receive for crimes that were committed. The mandatory minimum punishment guidelines would require for judges to hand down judgement for a certain length of time. This would mean that for crimes that are committed there are criminal sentencing guidelines, this would give judges a certain discretion on how to proceed in sentencing an offender. These minimum sentencing apply to many of the crimes committed on society, such as violent, drug-related crimes and for those habitual offenders. In cases where the offender commits a crime and is a repeat offender then it should be left up the presiding judge to serve out justice. People who commit low level crimes should be punished but not to the extent of going to prison for a long period of time. Congress has enacted these guidelines so that the criminal justice system would not be burden with smaller crimes or be overwhelmed. Lengthy sentencing hearings seldom are necessary, the disputes about sentencing elements must be resolved with sensitivity concern and carefulness. A dispute exists about any factor important to the sentencing determination then a judge will use his discretion to hand down equal and fair judgement. Legislator statements during debates on mandatory

Currently Arizona holds the ninth highest incarceration rate in the nation. Responsible for the drastic rate of incarcerated inmates, is the mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have named Arizona the incarceration capital. By implementing the mandatory minimum sentencing law, the discretion that lay within the position as a judge is challenged by that of the prosecutor. With Arizona’s sentencing enhancement making little distinction between individuals who are responsible for either serious or petty crimes,

The three strikes law came out of the “get tough” era in the late 70’s. The era was based on the idea that crime is the result of an offender’s choice’s and personal responsibility. During this time, the criminal justice system focused on punishment instead of rehabilitation, as the government switched to determinate based, or individualized sentencing where conviction was served in a jail or prison with a defined length of sentence, and can not be changed by a parole board or other agency. It was fair and just sentences based on the crime committed and its severity. The three strikes law was a policy that was started in Washington in 1993, and Governor Pete Wilson adopted a broader version of it in California that requires a criminal to serve a sentence of twenty-five years to life after they have been caught and convicted of a third felony. There are a total of twenty-three states and the federal government who have adopted some for of the three strikes policy. The policy varies by each state and what crimes fall under felonies is the states discretion. For example, in Georgia, it only requires two violent felony convictions instead of three. In other states, it does not have to be a violent crime to be sent away for twenty-five to life. Different influences can lead to these types of policies. Public opinion and moral outrage are some of the ways that a policy can come about. Three

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

“Mandatory minimum sentencing means a person convicted of a crime must be imprisoned for a minimum term, as opposed to leaving the length of punishment up to judges”( US Legal, Inc.). Since, the 90’s American Judicial Systems Mandatory Sentencing have been around and it originally purpose was to get rid of the transferring and selling of drugs on the street. The U.S. disgned the mandatory minimum sentencing to send a clear message to everyone that

Mandatory minimum sentencing is the minimum time for certain crimes, usually drug related crimes. For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, there were no mandatory minimums with sentencing (Evan Bernick and Paul Larkin, 2014). In 1984, Congress chose to modify sentencing with the “Sentencing Reform Act”. This Act also included the “Armed Career Criminal Act”, which requires a minimum of 15 years for illegally carrying a gun (Charles Doyle, 2010), and the Act also increased punishment for the use, possession, transferring, and growing of marijuana. This Act also allowed Congress to limit courts power of leniency with crime (Evan Bernick and Paul Larkin, 2014). Mandatory minimums mainly affect drug related crimes. However, some gun and pornography crimes also have mandatory minimums (FAMM, 2014).

Ben Whishaw once said, "The criminal justice system, like any system designed by human beings, clearly has its flaws." For many years, the criminal justice system has been criticized for its many problems and errors; one in particular that caught my attention was the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. These laws basically set minimum sentences for certain crimes that judges cannot lower, even for extenuating circumstances. The most common of these laws deal with drug offenses and set mandatory minimum sentences for possession of a drug over a certain amount. Sentencing procedures can vary from jurisdiction to Jurisdiction. Most of these laws are ineffective and causes unnecessary jail overcrowding.