The “Three Strikes Law” has been highly controversial since it was introduced by our government in the early and into the mid 1990’s. Specifically the “Three Strikes Law” looks to target persistent and prior offenders to impose harsher sentences. Since such a small percentage of the population commits such a large percent of crime, the “Three Strikes Law” was designed to incapacitate the repeat offenders. The mandated and elongated prison sentences given out by the judges for repeat offenders have been criticized and enclose both benefits and detriments. Throughout this paper I will look to delve deeper into the “Three Strikes Law” to determine the constitutionality of the statute while looking at specific case examples to support my theory …show more content…
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
…show more content…
In the case of Solem V. Helm, the person convicted had a history of non-violent felonies. When convicted of another non-violent felony the judge used their discretion to enhance the crime to a class one felony. The length of imprisonment for the initial felony charged was a maximum of 5 years. With the new sanctions imposed on him, the class one felony maximum imprisonment was 25 years to life. Helm ultimately pled guilty and received a sentence of life without parole. Eventually appealing under Habeus Corpus relief, Helm argued that his punishment was cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment and the crime did not fit the punishment. The court eventually rule din his favor reducing his sentence. In hindsight, because helm had a previous record of minor felony offenses the initial judge sought to uphold the maximum punishment available. Even though Helm’s 7th felony offense was also