Three Strikes Law Research Paper

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

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

The three strikes law implemented in the 1990s as deterrence for a crime. Even though the three strikes law created to remove those considered a threat to society, many agree that this law needs revamping. Studies show that the three strikes law has not detoured crime drastically, but has been successful in removing repeat offenders from endangering the public again. This law included crimes that were nonviolent or petty crimes counted as a third strike in California. The state of California has been one of the cities with the biggest incarceration rate since the three strikes law enacted.

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

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.

This reduction eventually helped to deter criminals with the threat of increased incarceration. It has also been proven that three-strikes laws reduce felony arrest rates. People in favor of three-strikes laws believe that it is an example of effective crime control, a preventive measure for career felons, adds additional peace of mind for citizens, and provides harsher punishments for habitual offenders. On the other hand, those who are against the use of three strikes laws suppose that it adds an additional cost to courts and prisons, causes an over-population in prison cells, is an example of an unfair law, and is a result of the decline in the number of law enforcement officer

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 Law has caused a huge controversial debate and there are people that personally disagree with the law. As in any controversial debate you would have the affirmative and the negative side. Let’s explore some of the positive facts that the Three Strikes Law that support the affirmative side. To start of with one popular note is that it keeps the career criminals, individuals who commit crime as a part of their lives, off the streets. Of course we want to keep the sex offenders, murderers, and rapist, off the street so we can worry that much less for the safety of ourselves and others. Another positive is that it is a deterrent. It is a very effective deterrent after the second conviction (Mersseli). If an offender is released from the second conviction, this law will deter them from any crime, whether it is minor or not. The thought of being sent to prison for 25 years to life is a pretty effective deterrent and will have that offender thinking more than twice before he or she will commit another crime.

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 Three Strikes Law was first passed in Washington, and then nine other states followed in 1994.The Three Strike Law is a law that give criminals extra time on their sentence, if they keep repeating felons. This laws has some consequences that come with it, but it also have several positives. One of the many advantages that come with The Three Strike Law is the deterrence effect because it help criminals understand the consequences of the law and the change of the youth actions can change the crime rate.

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,

The three strikes law was implemented in the early 1990's for offender that are consider to be an extreme nuisance to the community as well as being called habitual offenders. These criminals are ones that have committed two felonies and are on their third. Now with that being said the third felony does not have to be a severe or heinous act. The third felony could be something as simple as grand larceny or forgery (The free dictionary, Three Strike Laws). The three strike laws were first adopted by Washington state and shortly there a California adopted the three strike law due to an emotional murder that was committed by a felon convicted twice before (total criminal defense). By 2003, more than half of the United States had adopted the three strike laws. Many States do have provisions under these laws called "habitual offender" provisions and these people are only affected by

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,

Furthermore, this movement against the severity of fixed sentencing is associated with the mandatory ‘strike laws’ as seen in California (Dansky 2008: 23) leading to overpopulation of prison as upon third offence offenders are sentenced to either: 1) a sentence greater than twenty-five years; 2) three times the sentence time of the charged felony; or 3) the time of the felony plus additional enhancements of

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.