Death penalty VS Life in prison By Colin Robertson “Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty... mine's putting in an express lane.” – Ron White The death penalty, as it is commonly referred, is the penalty sometimes given to the criminals faced with the most horrific crimes possible. Many feel it is necessary in order to keep society safe because of how it permanently removes these select people from society, feeling that this will keep them safe from danger. It has been a part of the justice system since the beginning of human history, used primarily in cases of murder, treason and in military service, but just because something is old, doesn’t mean it’s what is right. The last several centuries have seen the emergence of modern nation states. Almost obvious to the concept of nation state is the idea of citizenship.
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.
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.
Many armed robbers are not new to the crime and usually have a criminal history of robbery or criminal behavior in their past. These career criminals are a major problem and commit the most serious crimes over and over again. While statistics show that the rate is going down, we would like to further propose a bill that would help to stop this crime from occurring all together. Our proposed plan to reduce this activity is to double the maximum prison term for anyone convicted of armed robbery. These changes will be effective by keeping these offenders behind bars for longer, preventing them from committing the same crime again.
Also, technology and managerial efforts’ failures are conceivable and it can be crucial in certain circumstances. Similarly, judges’ plan for placing yard signs is somewhat raise negative signal in the criminals, who wants to overcome his guilt. As a result, he would isolate himself from the society, and which in turn will produce negative outcomes. Then again, for the public safety, it is necessary to ratify different security mechanism despite the presence of moral and legitimate issues. So, it would be healthy to trace and map criminal’s residence to avoid potential threats of
There has to be a consequence for breaking laws and committing crimes for anyone. However, there is also a big difference between a non-violent crime and a violent crime. Someone who is arrested for drug possession verses someone arrested for murder is like night and day so should they be punished alike for such different crimes? I think the whole drug epidemic needs to be overhauled and corrected. Rather than put these people in jail where they just sit till they get out why not have a different type of jail where they are housed and rehabilitated with appropriate treatment and awareness?
To be effective, the punishment must be harsh enough to actually deter people from committing crimes. A more effective way is the “carrot and stick” policy, in which the law abider is given an incentive to follow rules, and is punished if he does not. While few would really argue against taking the bite out of punishment, there are some arguments that deterrence is not nearly as effective as we'd like it to be. Statistics showing high crime rates among people who have already been in prisons, or punished in other ways can easily be used to demonstrate that deterrence isn't so very effective. The sheer threat of punishment is not enough to ensure the smooth functioning of a law-abiding society, as countless examples of tyranny and police states illustrate.
Name: Institution: Course: Tutor: Date of submission: 3 Strikes Law Three Strikes Laws are acts that are passed by state governments in the U.S. It gives mandates to state courts to give life sentences to persons convicted of three or more severe criminal offenses. These acts became popular in the 1990s. Its intent is to ensure that there are longer prison sentences and bigger punishment for those committing felonies and those formerly convicted of severe offenses. It is aimed at the criminals who are not deterred by imprisonment and those who are not open to rehabilitation efforts.
This idea that Americans have in their brains- that prison “works” seems to mean that it reduces crime. Upon further investigation, I’ve learned that prison not only impacts crime, but it sets up the perfect way for criminals to derive new plans to commit more crimes. Back in 1993, Terrie Moffett, a psychologist, wrote a paper about his idea that there are two different kinds of prisoners. The less serious kind of prisoner, known as “Adolescent-limited”, usually are young men, who commit crimes more so for fun, while being part of gangs, or other reasons, end up maturing and giving up their lifestyles and moving on. The other kind is “lifelong-persistent” prisoners, who commit crimes repeatedly and end up on a never-ending cycle in the criminal justice system (Why Prison Doesn’t Work: An Essay).
Non-violent crimes should just be a punishable fine because it saves money for the United States and the federal prisons in the United States. Non-violent crimes in America are rising rapidly and non-violent criminals are being sent to federal prisons or jails for a stupid reason. Like for an example many people are being arrested and sent to prison for selling drugs now how is this a violent crime? Drugs are illegal in America but it’s not really hurting our country right now. The main thing that is hurting our country right now is violence, when you read the news about Chicago they had more murders then the soldiers in Iraq due to gang violence.