Ewing had been convicted of both burglary and robbery approximately seven years before the crime that gave rise to this appeal. When he stole the golf clubs, he was still on parole following his release from prison related to those two felony convictions. Following his conviction in this case, the trial judge declined to exercise discretion and convict Ewing of a misdemeanor only, as he was allowed but not required to do under California law. After determining that Ewing should be punished for a felony offense, the trial judge applied California’s “three strikes" law, where a criminal defendant must be sentenced indeterminate life sentence, which in this case was twenty-five years to life. Ewing claimed that the sentence was disproportionate
The Three Strikes law is a way to ensure justice and to stop criminals from committing more crimes. According to Adam Gelb, director of the Pew Center's Public Safety
If the offender is found guilty for the charge they will receive the harsher sentence, it is all about being honest within the federal courts, on determining the offenders
The Three Strikes Law states that a penalty enhancement should be handed down to anyone who had previously been convicted of one or more supposedly serious or violent felonies. Under the same laws, an offender who had previously been convicted of a violent or serious felony, regardless of how diminished it may be, face the risk of double-sentencing under the guidelines of the second strike. On the other hand, a third- strike sentencing guideline is applied when an offender with two or more previous crimes is convicted. Under this guideline, a minimum of twenty-five years to life is applied. However, for the third-strike sentence to be passed, the previous crimes committed must be either violent or serious.
The three strike law aimed to convict career offenders by giving them a harsher verdict when the offender has been convicted of their third offenses. The goal of this law was to control career offenders by making them think twice about committing crimes because of the harsh punishment they would face if they were caught committing the third crime. Ever since the law has been passed it has been in the center of many controversies. Many argue that the law is unfair to the offenders and that it has a negative effect on society.
In the first scenario where Sam Smith committed a robbery in possession of a firearm, the type of sentencing model I would use is a determinate sentence. I think determinate sentencing would be ideal because Sam did accept his responsibility, had no previous criminal record, and no one was injured. He would receive a fixed sentence term for his actions and if he were to have good conduct in jail then he would qualify for an early release based on conduct. The actual sentence I would impose would abide by the Florida minimum mandatory law because of the firearm he was in possession of.
Across the world, various countries impose sentences on criminals for different reasons. Some reasons include to punish offenders, protect the public, change an offender’s behavior, ensure offenders do something to make up for their crime, and to reduce crime in the future. With that being said, the country I chose to have the better sentencing philosophy as opposed to utilizing them all, is England. I chose the English sentencing philosophy because they utilize isolation, deterrence and rehabilitation as a means of condemning their offenders, and by punishing them in proportion to their culpability for criminal activity (Terrill, 2016). By isolating the offender, the British believe their society would be safer and more protected from
Lastly, the three Strikes laws will impose life sentences on offenders whose crimes don't warrant such harsh punishment. Not all crimes are the same. A violent offense such as breaking someone’s nose, as opposed to rape should not be given the same sentence. Yes, violence is never the answer, but it is not the equivalent to rape. The punishment should fit the crime.
Deterrence is future oriented to prevent crimes. Deterrence has two types general and specific. General is an individual punishment to dissuade others from committing crimes and specific is an individual being punished for additional
In the U.S. criminal justice system, there are two basic sentencing models that the courts use to apply their judgments. These are determinate sentencing and indeterminate sentencing. Determinate sentencing can be referred as a set sentence imposed to an offender this model is based on the famous phrase “Do the crime and will do the time”; however, this model has a unique quality and that is that a parole board can’t overturn the length of the sentence that was imposed. On the other hand indeterminate sentencing can be describe as the length of a sentences that has not being defined yet like the term “25 to life” on this term you can see that the sentencing was not set to an specific time frame, that means that the offenders release date is
Sentencing Authority If I was a judge the type of sentencing authority I would most likely have would be indeterminate sentencing. Indeterminate sentencing is the burden of a sentence by detainment with no precise time frame set during the sentencing. Its length, rather, is resolved in light of the detainee's behavior.
The three strikes law refers to a “category of statutes” that substantially increases the length of imprisonment for anyone found guilty of three or more felony offenses (Legal). A strike is incurred each time an individual is convicted of a serious, or violent felony. The felonies that are included within this category are: “burglary, robbery, kidnapping, murder, rape, child molestation involving the use of a weapon, any offense that results in severe bodily injury, arson, and crimes that involve explosive materials.” (Randolph). Baumes law, was the precursor to the three strikes law that are in place today.
Most criminals were given only broad maximum terms of (state of being locked in a prison). If federal judges were selected/hired to deliver any sentence, the sentence would go from probation to the law-related highest possible value. No meaningful (taking a court case to a higher court for review) of the sentence was available to the offender. With the judges meeting up to make their final legal decision, each judge 's individual ideas/plans of justice and views of the purposes of sentencing, and sentences for almost the same offenses varied very much depending on the identity of the sentencing judge. Also, the system was not limited to sentencing judges.
In determinate sentencing the judge can make adjustments to the final day of incarceration, however, the inmate can leave no sooner that the mentioned final day. During indeterminate sentencing, a final day of incarceration is not known exactly and adjustments can be made for different modes of incarceration. The judge and jury are able to change these sentences depending on the severity of the crime and the history of the inmate. I believe that this is why judicial discretion has such a great effect on these types of sentencing. The sentences can be adjusted appropriately in order to be sure that the offender does not end up being given too much or too little time for the crime that they committed.
There is a worldwide trend in the use of penal imprisonment for serious offenses as capital punishment has been renounced by an increasing number of countries. Harsh punishments include capital punishment, life imprisonment and long-term incarceration. These forms of punishments are usually used against serious crimes that are seen as unethical, such as murder, assault and robbery. Many people believe that harsher punishments are more effective as they deter would-be criminals and ensure justice is served. Opposition towards harsh punishments have argued that harsher punishments does not necessarily increase effectiveness because they do not have a deterrent effect, do not decrease recidivism rates and do not provide rehabilitation.
