Arguments Against The Three Strike Laws

In today’s society people are going to jail for committing minor felonies such as possession of a small amount of drugs, shoplifting a two dollar pair of socks, breaking into a soup kitchen for food, writing a bad check for $146, and stealing a slice of pepperoni pizza. Why are these people going to jail for these minor felonies you might ask? The answer is simple; it’s due to the “Three Strike Laws.” You might be asking yourself what are Three Strike Laws, in Criminal Justice the Three Strike Laws are defined as laws enacted by state governments which mandate courts to impose harsher sentences on those convicted of an offense if they have been previously convicted of two prior serious criminal offenses. In the last few years the prison population in many of the states has seen a massive decline. This is due to the overcrowding of many prisons, the arrests of racial minorities, residents of neighborhoods going in and out, and the most critical element is being the lengthening of prison sentences and widening of offenses that subject violators to prison terms. Due to the three strike laws 56% of the third-strikers received sentences for nonserious offenses which resulted in life imprisonment causing the overcrowded of prisons. Proposition 36 which was passed in 2012 by 69% of voters in California

The most important case that the Supreme Court had dealt with under the Three Strike Laws was Lockyer v. Andrade (2003). This case was involved under California’s “Three Strikes” law, in which Leandro Andrade was found guilty of two felony counts of petty theft with a prior conviction after he stole approximately $150 worth of videotapes. Under California’s regime the judge had sentenced him to two consecutive terms of 25years to life in prison. In affirming, the California Court of Appeal rejected his claim that his sentence violated the Eighth