As it is felt that expanding and clarifying the Three Strikes Law is the best option within one debate is the three strikes law “destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge. Each criminal offender is different. Each set of crimes is different. The specific reason we have judges, juries, and lawyers is that each situation deserves a fair analysis and punishment. A one-size-fits-all system of judgment destroys the flexibility.” (Messerli, 2012) But it is felt within establishing the clarification and limitations of these laws being applied that of only serious, and for violent crimes limits the possible miss application of these guidelines into crimes that would be seen as unjust for the crime
The goal of any law enforcement philosophy is to limit crime whenever possible, and it is rather apparent that whatever the statistics may show, sex offenders have a recidivism rate that borders on a pathological need to commit additional crimes. Merely brushing this aside by saying after their prison term that they have paid their debt is insufficient in light of the emerging research; it must be studied further in order to determine what the most effective way to curtail sex offender recidivism is. The research problem I will examining is why sex offenders have a recidivism rate that is so much higher than other crimes. I will focus on scouring the published material to find out if there is some sort of hormone imbalance in the average sex offender, or if there is a commonality in their upbringing that pushed them to commit such horrible crimes. The goal will be to look for links between sex offenders that commit the crime once again after their prison term is over.
OBJECTIVE This study will examine the Massachusetts rearrest rates of nonviolent drug offenders treated in Drug Treatment Courts (DTC) in contrast to offenders sent to incarceration. DTCs provide an effective way to break the cycle of drug use and its resulting criminal behavior. DTCs use judicial monitoring, supervision, drug testing and education to rehabilitate the offenders. These programs often defer or suspend sentences in exchange for successful completion of the treatment program. If the offender does not complete the treatment, the initial sentence of incarceration is enforced (Gottfredson, 2003).
Explain how mandatory sentencing breaks the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Mandatory sentencing infringes upon the separation of powers doctrine because deprives the judiciary of its independence, this results in unfair punishments being handed down to the people of the State and the judiciary simply becomes a political tool for the government. Mandatory sentencing is where people convicted of certain crimes must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison. Mandatory sentencing limits the judicial discretion. Judicial discretion is the power granted to the judiciary through the separation of powers allows the judiciary to freely decide what is to be done in particular circumstances.
“Three Strikes” or Habitual Offender Comprehensive Exam Whitney Polen CJ 602: Comprehensive Examination Kaplan University July 31, 2014 Dr. Patricia Drown Introduction The “three strike”/habitual offender’s legislation needs to be consistent through all of the states. What it will take to understand why some offenders feel they need to repeat this criminal activity, having legislation that will work against these repeat offenders, because not all states are on board with the three strike law. Once someone is labeled a habitual offender and they commit a crime there are increases in the penalties they can be assessed. The type of crimes these offenders commit can also be ranked in a more serious class than if a first time offender had committed it. The sentencing can also add more time when a habitual offender commits a crime.
The first time offender might get a second chance with a non-conviction program and be scared straight. The benefits of the bargaining system here are obvious. While most prosecutors do consider victims of the crime in bargaining, it is a case by case basis on whether or not the prosecutor will consult the victim before reaching a bargain with the defendant. It is likely that the bargaining system will continue to be practiced within our criminal system for a long time to come. I disagree with plea bargaining for the fact that if they did something once and get a plea bargain many will think of it as they got away with something, also they may think if they do something again they will think they can get another plea bargain deal.
We do not officially sanction the use of beating & torture or execution for sex crimes. The printing of sex offender on one’s driver’s license as well as posting of warnings on websites could be seen as opening the door to vigilante behavior. Personally, I have no problem, just some pause, with such notifications, but there may be court challenges by some civil libertarian groups in re to such practices. There are even sex offender advocacy groups, such as ReformSexOffenderLaws.Org, set up for the purpose of modifying/overturning laws they perceive as unfair. The disconcerting thing is that on some issues a valid point is made practically as well as
Steve Chabalal Period 8 Ms. O'Neill Should Juveniles be Sentenced to Life Without Parole? Statistics support both sides on whether or not juveniles should be sentenced to life without parole. Both sides involve very controversial and logical support; but in my opinion I strongly agree that juveniles should not be sentenced to life without parole. We may sacrifice the rarity of a potential “project gone wrong” and the juvenile on parole may go on to commit more meaningless crimes. In my opinion the reward outweighs the risk in many ways.
Unfortunately, our society has resorted to the use of plea bargains due to the expenses of a jury trial. Pros and Cons of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing To every situation or argument there is a list of pros and cons. The following are a few of the arguments for and against mandatory minimum sentencing. Pros: (1) Keep judges from giving useless sentences, such as probation for child molesters, (2) The potential cost of committing crimes is clearly laid out, which may actually deter someone who is aware of those minimums, (3) They can also help reduce the case load at courts through plea bargains. Cons: (1) Disproportionately affect minorities, (2) Increase prison population, (3) eliminates judicial discretion so the punishment does not always fit the crime.
In this paper I will discuss whether the application of harsher penal sanctions in the form of lengthy prison terms act as more of a deterrent to criminal behaviour when compared to alternative sentencing. To answer my thesis I will begin by applying the Structional-Functional approach using Emile Durkheim’s functions of deviance to clarify why incarceration is used as the criminal sanction of choice when responding to serious deviant behaviour. Secondly, I will outline a brief comparison between the lengths of prison terms in the United States when compared to that of Sweden. Third, using the Symbolic-interaction approach to deviance, I will apply Sutherlands Differential theory of association to interpret how social interactions between inmates within prison can contribute to recidivism rates. Finally I will conclude with a critical analysis of the evidence that has been presented and interpret the results of my research.