More handpicked essays just for you.
The three strikes law pros and cons
Critical analysis on three strikes law
The three strikes law pros and cons
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This is the final draft of my HCP, where I had a completely new topic for my HCP. This draft is about the Three Strikes Law in New Mexico, where we had seen a lot of increase in crime rates after the Three Strikes Law was passed in 1994. This draft involves a lot of information about how the Three Strikes Law has caused an increase in crime rates every year and what kind of crimes has increased in New Mexico City. By the end of this draft, I was not completely satisfied with my final draft because I did not get a chance to review this draft as much I thought could have done it since they were some parts in the essay that were confusing to Professor Tae Sung even though I tried my best to make sure there is nothing confusing to him in my paper.
In 1993, twenty three states and the federal government adopted some form of the three strike law intending to target repeat offenders. The State of Washington was the first to do so; the State of California soon followed with a considerably broader version of the law. Even though, adopted versions of the three strike law vary among the states, the laws generally reduced judicial discretion by mandating severe prison sentences for third (in some instances first and second) felony convictions. 1993 was unquestionably the peak of public concern about crime and the peak of the political response to that concern, resulting in what was a unique punitive period in American history. America’s incarceration rate increase more during the 1990s than
The Constitution guarantees rights and fair treatment for everyone. The rights that the Founders outlined in the Constitution include those reserved for the federal government as well as those reserved for the people. These rights have been altered throughout the years, and some continue to be debated. Policies have been put in place to deal with those who decide to disturb the peace and break the laws. The structure of America’s society relies on these rights and laws.
NYPD has engaged in a practice known as “Stop and Frisk”. This policy allows officers, based on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, to engage in investigatory stops and to conduct a pat down of the outer clothing of the individual if there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed” (Simmons, 2014). A stop can take place with an individual that an officer considers reasonable to search based upon speculation of an encounter. For example an officer pulls over a young black man and request for his driver license and registration. The young man complies but the officer begins to speculate and assume he is carrying either illegal drugs or a concealed weapon.
I believe that the federal justice system is just and unbiased. The federal justice system has guidelines and rules to keep them from using power improperly and targeting groups of people based on their race. This is talked about in article “Is the Criminal Justice System Racist”. There are statistics given pertaining to the prison sentences given to African Americans, prosecution during a felony trial, and crime/prison rates.
The maximum length is set by legislators and the judge imposes the length of the sentence up to the maximum. Mandatory sentences are set by legislators instead of judges. Mandatory sentences set a penalty for certain crimes that is the standard for all offenders convicted of that crime. I do not believe three-strike laws should be implemented across
In 1994 the statute demanded a prison sentence of 25 years to life without parole of those convicted of a third felony or serious crime. California has received the most criticism and attention over the years regarding the constitutionality of “Three Strikes” and is considered to have the harshest stipulations. Prosecuting attorneys in California have the discretion to include or exclude a strike on previous convictions even if the crime was a misdemeanor or non-violent crime. With unusually high percentages of imprisonment and the large amounts of money being spent to maintain the prisons along with their inmates, it is important to fully understand the “Three Strikes Laws” and the effects they have on our economy along with the rights of our countries citizens. Looking at different case and statutory examples we can begin to see the flaws and imperfections that the statutes
He would steal to get the money for his drug habit. Mr. Anderson’s third strike was for purse snatching. Because of his two previous convictions, Mr. Anderson was sentenced under the Third Strike law to send a minimum of 25 years in prison. He served 12 years of that sentence (The Return,
In the United States, habitual offender laws, are statutes enacted by state governments which mandates the courts to impose harsher sentences on those convicted of an offense if they have been previously convicted of two prior serious criminal offenses. What this means is that people that have been put in prison 3 times will get a harsher punishment going from whatever they 're consequence is to life in prison. I am against this law, for reasons I will talk about later. The origin of the three strikes law came from article 2 section 28 of the Montana constitution in 1998, which states the three strikes law.
By abiding with this type of sentencing there is a bigger slack of discretion I can use. I can base more on the individual as a person. If the individual doesn’t have a prior criminal record this will benefit him in my sentencing. Mitigating Circumstances
In theory, the felony murder doctrine makes sense and seems like it could aid in crime prevention according to choice theory. The felony murder doctrine is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first degree murder even if the intent to kill was not present. In order for the felony murder doctrine to be used, the defendant must have taken part in a dangerous felony that resulted in the death of a person. Even if the defendant did not kill anyone, if a person dies while they are commiting a dangerous felony, the defendant can be charged with first degree murder. Dangerous felonies include burglary, robbery, rape, arson, and kidnapping.
Felon disenfranchisement did not start in the United States. In fact, the practice of felon disenfranchisement began in ancient Greece and Rome before evolving even more in England with “outlawry”, by the time this practice came to the United States it began to evolve into what it is today based on the other nations practices (Grady, 2012, pp. 443-445). Felon disenfranchisement, for those who do not know, is taking away a felon’s right to vote. Usually, this only occurs when they are incarcerated, but some states also do not allow the ex-felons to vote even when they are back in regular society. In Michigan, felons are granted their right to vote again once they are freed from incarceration.
In other words, if you commit a crime the second time, you serve double and if you commit the 3rd time, you get sentenced minimum 25 yrs. in jail, no matter what crime it is. This was a new law implemented after a man who was recently paroled. He had many criminal records such as drug possession and gun abuse. At the time of release, he was on influence and was a drug addict.
However, crimes are committed whilst in prison, such as drugs and assaults. Some critics say the ‘three strikes and you are out’ law where repeat offenders get a longer sentence are wrong, as the third strike could be a lesser crime such as public disorder. Nevertheless, if just incapacitation and no rehabilitation some critics say will be costlier to society as they will go out and reoffend and, they are not employed and pay taxes. Rehabilitation is also a punishment which should improve the offender's behaviour and stop them committing crimes. Advocates of rehabilitation state prison does not work; however, critics of rehabilitation state prison does work as the criminal cannot commit a crime against the public while incarcerated (Cavadino, 2007 p 36/56).
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.
