Three Strikes Law Research Paper

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.

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,

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

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

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

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 live in a world of laws, statutes, and regulations. This society has to enforce all of it in order to keep this country from going into complete chaos. Some laws can cause a large amount of controversy and debate over it. Specifically speaking, the Three Strikes and You’re Out Law. This one law has many people arguing for and against it. Statements from many saying that it is unjust and unfair, while others say that is what our society needs in order to keep this world safe from those career criminals. I strongly agree with the Three Strikes Law; although, the law should be altered in order for fit the different situations of individuals.

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

"Three Strikes and You're Out!” you think you would be hearing that phrase at a baseball game when a player has struck out but the phrase has been used as a metaphor for the three strikes law in California. It is a law that sentences repeated offenders, of serious or violent crimes, to twenty-five to life in prison. Although it seems desirable to put repeated offenders in prison, they are convicted even for petty crimes. It sentences an offender, whose first strike was a serious or violent crime, to serve a double sentence if the second crime is also serious or violent. The most controversial part of this law is that the third crime can be any crime, even misdemeanors, can “strike” out repeated offender because of their past felonies even

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,

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,

Black and Hispanic Americans are more likely to end up in prison. As Carroll writes, “According to the U.S. census, blacks are incarcerated five times more than whites are, and hispanics are nearly twice as likely to be incarcerated as whites. Hispanic men are 2.4 times more likely, to a sentencing project analysis of the data”. Given these statistics, the most important question is: why is the disparity so great between whites, blacks and Hispanics in terms of the prison population.

The Three Strike rule is also another key factor in the continuous episode of the incarceration saga. The three strike rule was implemented to remove drug dealers from society. Due to the overwhelming epidemic of the dysfunctional family syndrome that encompassed all of America, law officials intended for this form of punishment to eradicate the dealer as well as the

African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated; that is 60% of 30% of the African American population. African Americas are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites. “Between 6.6% and 7.5% of all black males ages 25 to 39 were imprisoned in 2011, which were the highest imprisonment rates among the measured sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age groups." (Carson, E. Ann, and Sabol, William J. 2011.) Stated on Americanprogram.org “ The Sentencing Project reports that African Americans are 21 percent more likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants and are 20 percent more likely to be sentenced to prison.” Hispanics and African Americans make up 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population. (Henderson 2000). Slightly 15% of the inmate population is made up of 283,000 Hispanic prisoners.

Along side this definition, there are are laws in place specifically for career criminals, or repeat offenders. Laws like The Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA) which, at its core, is a federalized version of the Three Strike Rule. The ACCA differs from the three strike law in that it was drafted mainly for criminals who commit crimes involving the use of firearms. The law mandates a minimum sentence of fifteen years after the third conviction for felons of violent felonies or drug offense. The seriousness of previous convictions is not taken into account when giving a third sentencing however. For instance, if a felon was convicted, three times, for possession of illegal substance but, for his fourth arrest, is convicted of possessing an illegal firearm, will have to serve a minimum of fifteen years based on the ACCA. Because of this, people ridicule the law for being too harsh on criminals.