Explain The Three Strikes Law For Juveniles

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

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.

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

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 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.

Three strikes stems from the reference to baseball. The three strikes law essentially means that a criminal is authorized two criminal offenses before “striking out” on the third. This shows that a habitual offender who is convicted of three or more violent or serious charges, “strikes out” and will receive harsher punishments. This form of legislations shows a drastic shift from retribution to incapacitation or deterrence as a form of punishment. Punishment or the threat of punishment is a representation of a mechanism that deters individuals from further engaging in criminal activity.

Introduction: Attention Getter: Definition: The Three Strikes Laws are the criminal laws that order increased sentences for repeat offenders usually after serious crimes. Introduce topic and purpose: They are called the “three strikes

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.

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.

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)

Imagine sitting in a courtroom, hoping the the judge will not give a harsh sentence. Unfortunately, that’s the case for many juveniles, some as young as 13! A juvenile is subject to a more severe sentence with the limited sentencing available. It is estimated that 250,000 youth are prosecuted as adults, each year. This number should change, as juveniles are not adults, both mentally and physically. Juveniles need an environment surrounded with guiding adults, education and the resources to help them. A juvenile is not an adult, and should not be tried as one.

Many jurisdictions have responded with so called “get tough” legislation. This type of legislation is a staple in the Crime Control Era that has taken the place of the Juvenile Rights Era, which ended around 1980. One such piece of legislation was Michigan’s Juvenile Waiver Law of 1997. In Michigan, prior to 1988, seventeen year-olds were the only minors automatically tried as adults, all others stayed in juvenile courts that afforded them the benefits discussed earlier. However, in response to rising violence get tough reforms were imposed. Kids, as young as fifteen, were now being tried automatically as adults for serious crimes. Additionally, if convicted of first-degree murder the judge can then choose to sentence the youth to a juvenile facility until twenty-one years of age, or mandatory life in adult prison. Then in 1997, legislation got even tougher. Fourteen year olds were now automatically charged as adults for serious offenses. Additionally, adult courts can no longer chose juvenile sentencing. One senator who helped craft the tougher legislation stated, “it doesn’t matter so much whether it’s 12 or 14 or 50 or 60, the Juvenile justice reform act’s basic finding was that if you do the crime, you do the time” (Barnes 2011). The number of juveniles serving life in adult correctional facilities

There are many similarities and differences between the adult and juvenile justice systems. Although juvenile crimes have increased in violence and intensity in the last decade, there is still enough difference between the two legal proceedings, and the behaviors themselves, to keep the systems separated. There is room for changes in each structure. However, we cannot treat/punish juvenile offenders the way we do adult offenders, and vice versa. This much we know. So we have to find a way to merge between the two. And, let’s face it; our juveniles are more important to us in the justice system. They are the group at they

Juveniles committing crimes is not a new issued being introduced to society; actually, it has been an issue for centuries. However, the big question is, should juveniles be tried in adult courts? Before answering, take into consideration every possible scenario that could have led them to commit the crime. For instance, were they the leader in the act? Did they participate in the crime? Was the juvenile even aware of what was taking place? Were they peer pressured? Did they have any other choice at the time? There are so many other questions we could consider when making a decision here.