If a person has two or more previous convictions for serious crimes, the three strikes provision applies for them. The defendants here are referred to as third strikers, and they fall in the category of ‘25 years to life’ in prison. The previous crime must be serious to qualify as a strike in both of the provisions (Domanick, 279). Most criminals in these provisions are not entitled to probation, and they should serve a prison term. To sentence a defendant under the two and three strikes provision, he or she must be convicted of a felony offense.
Serious offenses include all of the same offenses defined as violent offenses, and also include other crimes such as burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit a robbery or rape (Prosecutors’ perspective on California’s three strikes law, 2004). In this paper, I will analyze and discuss the issues involved with “three-strikes” or habitual offender legislation. I will also discuss if the legislation should strengthened, cancelled, or modified in my state. For instance, since the placement of the Three Strikes Law in 1993, there has been a trickle effect on the criminal justice system due to the ineffectiveness of the Three Strikes Law. There has been a negative impact on public safety, county jails and state prisons, judge & juror as well as the cost that will be seen by tax payers now and in the future.
C THREE STRIKES AND YOU ARE OUT In recent years several mandatory sentencing laws have been enacted by different states in the US. Mandatory sentence is defined “as a criminal sentence set by a legislature that establishes the minimum length of prison time for specified crimes and thus limits the amount of discretion a judge has when sentencing a defendant. Mandatory sentencing is a regime that provides a fixed sentence to a conviction of a particular crime while taking the judge’s discretion out of the equation. These sentencing laws have been made keeping in mind certain class of criminals who are incorrigible of changing also called repeat/habitual offenders. The most common mandatory sentencing law is the Three Strikes Law.
David Phillips, who chairs the crime committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, suggests that “someone manifestly guilty can evade conviction” under the double jeopardy rule. The amendments are able to alleviate this problem by allowing retrials provided that there is “new and compelling” evidence to be adduced. The first successful retrial case of R v Dunlop , which pleaded William Dunlop guilty to the murder of Julie Hogg in 1989, marks the reduction of legal gaps in the double jeopardy rule. Dunlop exploited the rule by confessing his guilt to a prison officer knowing that he could not be re-trialed. However, the amendments acted as a deterrent to such exploitation.
The Ethical Point of View in the Three Strikes Law 1 The Ethical Point of View in the Three Strikes Law University of Mississippi The Ethical Point of View in the Three Strikes Law 2 Abstract In America, there has been a continues problem with crime. Many of the crimes committed are violent crime inflicted on innocent people. What reseachers have discovered is most of these crime commited by habitual offenders. Now, in America states are taking a stand against crime and implementing laws to deterr these offenders. One of the laws adopted is the “Three Strikes and Your Out” law passed by the state of California.
Would the death penalty be “cruel and unusual” if it typically were given to poor people and minorities, while higher ups or white people were given life sentences for similar crimes? Did such a double standard violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Decisions: The Court split 5-4 striking down the death penalty as it was currently applied in state criminal laws. The four newest members of the Burger Court opposed the decision, while the holdovers from the Warren Court comprised a divided majority. “The court held that the death penalty, as it was currently applied in the state criminal codes, violated the 8th Amendment and 14th Amendment rights of condemned persons”.
In 1976, after the arrival of lethal injection and additional laws to protect the innocent, the Supreme Court reversed its decision and reinstated the death penalty. Many of the same arguments that were used to abolish the death penalty are still being asserted today. People favor capital punishment for numerous reasons. First, capital punishment is believed to deter crime. Criminals may think twice before committing crimes, knowing that their actions could cost them their lives.
In the United States the 1990 US Sentencing Commissions report Minimum Mandatory Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System was described as demonstrating: "...that mandatory minimum sentencing laws unwarrantedly shift discretion from judges to prosecutors, result in higher trial rates and lengthened case processing times, arbitrarily failed to acknowledge salient differences between cases and often punish minor offenders much more harshly than anyone believes is warranted. Interviews with judges, lawyers and probation officers at twelve sites showed that heavy majorities of judges, defence counsel and probation officers disliked mandatory penalties; prosecutors are about evenly divided. Finally, and perhaps not surprisingly given the other findings, the report shows that judges and lawyers not uncommonly circumvent mandatories." (McColl, n.d, pg
Three-Strikes Law Three-Strikes Law In 1994, a very controversial, “Three Strikes” law was first passed in the state of California. The law forces state courts to impose of life sentence upon anyone who has been convict3d of two or more criminal offenses. This law is immoral, unjust, faulty, and should not be allowed anywhere in the United States of America. The law is immoral because it is putting people who have committed small crimes in prision for double life sentences when the situation could be easily resolved with community service or even a few life years in jail. For example, there was a “man [who was] sentenced to prison for 25 years to life under the law for stealing a bottle of vitamins” (Murphy).
The consequences and effects of the “three strikes and you’re out” laws on States and offenders. With the ever increasing rate of crime in the U.S. during the early 90’s the states of Washington and California led the way to implement a true form of the three strikes and you’re out laws. The main reason for creating these laws was an attempt to crack down on career criminals and/or repeat/persistent offenders who commit three felonies by locking them up for long periods of time. Additionally, it was an attempt to get those who are “predicted” to commit a crime off the streets and into long term prison sentences. There are many issues involving three strikes you’re out laws which not only affect the state that enforces them but also those