Criminal justice

Three Strikes Laws 1

Three Strikes Laws

Dionne Russell

CJS/225

Carol Thomas

November 04, 2019

Three Strikes Laws 2

Three Strikes Laws

Three strike laws are laws enforced by the state to ensure a crime less society. They

enforce harsh sentences for a person or victims who commits a violent felony and who already

has two previous felony convictions, or in a state without such a law. These laws are enhanced to

create a correctable society and avoid persons avoiding same felony convictions they previously

had in a court of law. Three strike laws gives severe punishment to such victims and can lead to

life imprisonment. The three strikes laws were enacted under the Violent Crime Control and Law

Enforcement Act of 1994. The statutes of three strikes provided for a mandatory life

imprisonment if one is convicted felony, ( Austin, J., & National Institute of Justice (U. S.),

(2000). In a federal court, the victim has to be convicted of a serious repeated and violent felony

for the judgement to be made. It means being convicted for the same offense in multiple times.

Legislation three strike laws are indeed right. Victims should realize that being convicted

of the same or similar account does not reflect the corrective aspect of our federal courts. One

should change upon conviction and service of his jail term. For example, robbery with violence

or murder is a serious felony offense. These offenses inflict much pain to the affected victims

who would not love to encounter the same experience in their locality. If a victim is convicted in

a court of law and does not change indicates the first sentence had no positive effect. Three strike

laws will be applied on the preceding conviction and a severe punishment will be instituted.

Three strikes laws should be well considered before actions are enforced. Terms of the

punishments should be enacted depending on extend of the case. Defendants should not suffer

long prison terms for unconstitutional laws. For illustration purpose, in California stores a

defendant was found guilty of stealing $150 worth of tapes, (Kieso, D. W. (2005). The defendant

Three Strikes Laws 3

had prior convictions and the judge condemned the defendant to 50 years in prison for the

thievery of the video tapes. This was pursuant to California’s three strikes law. The defendant

appealed his sentence before the U.S. Supreme Court in Lockyer v. Andrade (2003), but the

Court maintained the constitutionality of the law. I do not think this was a fair ruling, such minor

cases should have allowances for considerable jail terms other than those enhanced in three strike

laws. Compared to more serious offences like murder, the two victims should not undergo same

jurisdiction.

Three strike laws should be enforced for a better society. Defendants should know the

consequences of their actions. Crimes to society should not be condoned by anyone in the society

and if severe punishment brings sanity in the society, then three strike laws should be supported

extensively. The law needs not to be twisted either to suit a situation. The law has to be followed

to the later and that is why my illustration was reinstated. These laws really deserves revisiting to

accommodate these grievances.

Three Strikes Laws 4

References

Kieso, D. W. (2005). ​Unjust sentencing and the California Three Strikes law. ​New York: LFB

Scholarly Pub.

Austin, J., & National Institute of Justice ( U.S.),. (2000). “​Three strikes and you’re out”. The

implementation and impact of strike laws.