Three Stirke Law

2801 Words12 Pages
“Three strikes” sentences: expand them, preserve them as is, or abolish them Outline I. I do support the proposed amendment to our Three Strikes Law. A. I also think that it should be expanded the law has been the same for decades. B. The Three-strike law mandates doubling sentences for a second felony conviction. It also imposes life in prison for a third conviction. II. Proposition 184, the three strikes law, was imposed to sentence repeat criminals with harsher sentence A. California’s current “three strikes” law B. The original law was approved in 1994 C. The California Supreme Court has judges presiding over such cases D. Proposition 36 went into effect on July 1, 2001 III. Pros and Cons on the “Three Strikes” law A. The “Three Strikes” law, which provides mandatory 25-to-life sentences for a third felony conviction. B. Three strikes laws reduce felony arrest rates C. The jail is full of three-strike offenders, had to release lesser offenders because of the overcrowding. D. I think what they need to do is modify the law to say that the third strike has to be a violent felony IV. In an opinion the court holds that a defendant serving a sentence under the three strikes law may file a writ of habeas corpus. V. California voters considered Proposition 66, which aimed to significantly revise the Three Strikes law. IV. Three Strikes revised Annqunette Williams March 18, 2013 I do support the proposed amendment to our Three Strikes Law, arguing that it will help protect the public from the small, hard core population of career criminals. I also think that it should be expanded the law has been the same for decades and, it hurt the people who are trying to change their life around but get caught in a bad situation. Proposition 184, the three strikes law, was imposed to sentence repeat criminals with harsher
Open Document