750 word esssay

Three Strike Law

The identified problem is the Three Strike Law. In recent years, states and Congress have passed the enactment under the trademark of "Three Strikes and You are Out." As a significant aspect of the current political push to order progressive harder jail terms for rehash guilty parties, this type of enactment seems to guarantee the chronic offenders get the hardest sentences accessible to the state missing capital punishment which has always involve life detainment without the chances of parole. Three strike law was developed in California as a means of lengthening sentences and deterring crime especially the crimes that are committed by repeat offenders. Recent studies have indicated that these three strikes law is less efficient than its initial intended (Choi & Mijin, 2015).

This paper provides a discussion evaluating the problem associated with the Three Strike Law. The numbers of incidences are also identified, and explanation on why the issues need to solve is also provided. Three possible solutions towards the problem of this Law are recommended.

Some problems have been cited by citizens regarding these laws. The problem associated with these statutes includes its tendency to discriminate against some minority population unfairly; the trend of sentencing people who usually may be grouped as non-violent; minor criminals; and the felony offenders. Most of the individuals serving sentences because of the felony crimes stay in jail for 25 years to life (Datta, 2017).

This law seems to be very useful when it comes to the significant crimes; nevertheless there is a need to revise it in order to avoid severe vagueness, uncertainty in the nonsense and its content, along with the extensive network of the discretion of the judges who are in a position of sending a defendant to prison for their entire life over minor crime. There is a need to revise this law to give the individuals who are involved in the serious crimes like murder, pedophile, rape, or other crimes leading to death, 25 years to life imprisonment. However, if the offense is less severe for example crimes like robbery, drunk or drugs without injuring someone or killing another person, then the Three Strike Law should not apply (Choi & Mijin, 2015).

There is the likelihood that this Law would keep on imposing life penalties if the charges were for the less severe crimes, non-violent sex or the drug crimes. Indeed, the legislature might be legitimized in rebuffing a rehash offender more extremely that a first guilt party, however, three strike laws are unnecessary excess. The supporters of this law guarantee that it will deterrent impacts the lousy offense. In any circumstance, these rules would presumably not prohibit several offenders from submitting hostile acts. Usually, most of the brutal crimes are not always planned. However, they are conferred in outrage in the warmth of enthusiasm. The chances of the lifelong incarceration are unlikely to prevent individuals who are having hastily behaviors with no consideration on the probable outcome of their behaviors (Choi & Mijin, 2015).

Even though many citizens might believe that the three strike laws are being directed to aggressive criminals and were undoubtedly promoted with an aim of punishing mainly relentless crimes and the criminals, around 70 percent of the defendants convicted under these laws are non-violent. National Institute of Justice suggested that three strike laws have has a significant effect on the plea-bargaining and court overcrowding, with the plea bargains reducing from 90 percent of the offense cases before the three strike laws to 14 percent following the three strike laws. This has lead to the increase in the number of judgment and overuse on the previous inadequate resources. The decrease in the plea bargains has resulted in overcrowding of the jails which causes public freedoms concerns, costly construction, and setting free of other prisoners to create rooms for the compulsory three-strike sentences (Tiedt & Sabol, 2015).

Three strike laws increase crime rates because of efforts to conceal the crime. One study has indicated that three strike rules generate 10 to 12 percent short lasting sentences in killings that would have not happened devoid of the presence of these rules. Also, 23 to 29 percent long-term penalties increase, and this means that additional killings are roughly 0.15 percent of the vicious offenses. This would lead to incurring social cost of $ 11 billion every year (Travis, Bruce, & Stevens, 2014).

The three strike law problem needs to be solved, and this is because it is previous law covered with the new ideas. Even though those advocating for this laws are acting as if something is unique in the three strike laws, it is merely a difference on an old subject. Three strike laws inflict rigid punishment together with the life sentences for the recurring offenders. It can be justifiable to punish the repeat offender more severely, but the three strike laws are over-killing. Another reason why there is a need to address this issue is that it is unlikely to prevent most of the violent crimes. According to the argument of those supporting these laws, three strike law would have a restraint consequence on violent offense. However, these rules are unlikely to stop these crimes because most of the vicious offenses are intended and are carried out in annoyance, in the heat of excitement or under the alcohol influence (Choi & Mijin, 2015).

These laws can also increase violence most so in opposition to the law enforcement officers, correction officers, and the community. An offender being subjected to life sentence is highly probable to oppose arrest, to murder the witness, or try escape from the prison. The problem of the three strike laws must be solved because they could clog the courts. The increased rates of arrests from the war against drugs dealings have put huge loads on the prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and the juries. Three strike laws would create a dangerous situation whereby the repeat criminals would insist on having expensive and time consuming judgmnt instead of presenting a plea bargaining because they are facing mandatory life sentences (Karch & Mathew, 2014).

Another reason why this problem must be solved is that it would take all sentences judgment away from the juries. These laws forces juries who have usually been in charge of meditating on both extenuating and infuriating situations ahead of granting the sentence. The price tag of jailing 3-time losers for life will be costly. It is likely to have a unequal effect on the marginal criminals; will compel life sentencing of the criminals whose offenses do not deserve such cruel sentence, and the laws are not severe responses to crimes.

One of the possible solutions to the three strike laws is the reduction of the severity of this rule. This can be done by getting a proposition for the amendment of the constitution on a California ballot especially during the voting process for the governors and senators. The proposal to amend the law must include policies that can enable the strikers to be given another opportunity.

Another alternative solution to this problem is the revision of this law. The review of this law should be aiming at giving the offenders are involved in the serious crimes that lead to death a less year of sentences which does not exceed 25 years to life imprisonment. The less severe crimes should not be subjected to the Three Strike Law. Also, the third strike law can be changed from life (without parole for at least 25 years) to being the maximum penalty laid down for the offense (without parole if a finite term).

References Choi, J., & Mijin, K. (2015). Assessment of sex offender notification policy in the United States: Has the policy been working? International Journal of Social Science Studies, 4 (1), 99-107. Datta, A. (2017). California's three strike law revisited: assessing the long-term effects of the law. Atlantic Economic Journa , 45 (2), 225-249. Karch, A., & Mathew, C. (2014). Rapid diffusion and policy reform: the adoption and modification of three strike laws. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 14 (4), 461-491. Tiedt, A., & Sabol, W. J. (2015). Sentence length and recidivism among prisoners released across 30 states in 2005: accounting for individual histories and state clustering effects. Justice Research and Policy, 16 (1), 50-64. Travis, J., Bruce, W., & Stevens, F. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: exploring causes and consequences.