For expertutor only

Three Strikes Law

Margaret Kerere

CJS/225

Patrick McNichol

April 09, 2016

The three strikes law is the name specified to the law that directs how people who have two prior felony charges and are indicted with a third are sentenced to lifetime imprisonment by the court. Three strikes laws command for definite regular offenders longer sentences, typically twenty-five years to life in prison for violent third-time offenders. These laws require violent criminals to serve as a minimum eighty-five percent of their sentences prior to being deemed for release. Originally the law was implemented to maintain violent felons from carrying on to getting back out of jails and execute further acts of violence. This law restricts the judge’s ability for giving out sentences. On the whole, if you acquire three strikes you are presumed to be imprisoned to life. This law is presumed to be set aside for the majority violent crimes such as murder, rape, and child molestation. In 1994 in California the law was first enacted instituting in response to a dreadful kidnapping case of a twelve-year-old boy by a man who was previously convicted of the crime of felonies. The state citizens were so raged by the atrocious crime that when the Three Strikes Law was approached for voting it was passed by a huge margin. It was also soon subsequent to that the federal government approved a similar law, and as well twenty-four additional states adopted the same sentencing laws.[ E.Cbemerinsky, (2002).] There are many organizations and people who support the Three Srikes Law, even though not devoid of some indecision. A lot of them feel the three strikes law assists to reduce crime and rates of arrest, deterring potential criminals with the threat of being imprisoned for life.

In the given case where a man who has approached me appears to be armed and might have evil intentions to harm me or rob me. In this case, my initial reaction would be to defend myself and get him caught by police. I would expect he should be properly punished for his violent behavior and put behind bars for a longer time so that he would not be able to attack anybody else in the society. Therefore, the Three Strikes Law would be the appropriate law applicable for him as he would be imprisoned for his lifetime. I feel the violent persons who pose dangers to society should be kept out of society, and the Three Strike Law serves the purpose. Violent felons are given two chances to improve their behavior and even if they commit the similar violent, severe crime for the third time they should be imprisoned for life. Such laws also create fear in the minds of criminals as they think twice before committing any such crime. It does have a deterring crime affect, and the purpose is served by imprisoning the most violent and dangerous criminals and keeping them out of the streets. So, therefore, I feel if this incident had happened in a state with a Three Strikes Law, it would sentence the alleged armed criminal imprisoned for life if he is already convicted of two crimes. However, I do not specifically know if the alleged suspect is a repeated violent offender or not. If he is just committing first-time crime due to his unavoidable severe circumstance and just want to frighten me without any intentions of harming me, the circumstances would be entirely different. He should be punished for his wrong deeds, but the Three Strike Law would be a harsher sentence as he would be imprisoned for life. I do believe sentences should be provided, or a person should be punished as per the severity of the crime committed.

However, I also do feel Three Strikes Law is not devoid of fault and regrettably human mistakes are terrific. The law was intended to sentence violent criminals other than it has been chiefly overused. There are terror stories regarding people being sentenced to life in prison for committing minor crimes such as for stealing pizza or stealing a pair of socks. As an issue of fact, the law has noticeably changed in California and further states in view of the fact that there were thousands of cases where the law had been abused. [ Daniel Marcet, (2011)]

The law was intended to put off violent criminals from obtaining entrance back into society to hurt people. It was on no account intended to keep people imprisoned for 25 years to life for having possession of drugs or stealing. Since its inception, the law has been misconstrued about 3,000 times. There are many cases in the state where these laws were implemented wherein point to the fact that these laws do not also make logic to the judges that are inflicting the sentences.

The laws are not extremely explicit they are in point of fact relatively general. There are queries that necessitate it to be tackled as to what composes a “third strike” in view of the fact that the law has been mistreated. If the third strike is intended to be entirely functional for only violent felonies, the laws require being precisely mention that. The law addresses and affects a lot of diverse aspects. For instance, the expenditure to imprison these habitual felons is extremely costly. As well, the three strike law has been recognized to be a source for the overloading of prisons. In addition, the three strike law have an effect on the low class and minority populations considerably. For instance, minorities and low-class individuals additionally likely will not have the finances or resources to assist them in the direction of obtaining a competent lawyer. A few of these individuals might in actual fact be innocent of the crimes they are being indicted with. These particular individuals devoid of a proper lawyer, do not have an opportunity opposing the three strike law whether they are actually being guilty or not.

In conclusion, I feel the suspected armed man who was approaching me to attack should be properly investigated, and his intention of committing the crime along with his personal background should be checked whether he has prior convicted felonies records. The Three Strikes Law may perhaps have initiated out as a fine idea. It could have had the right intentions behind it other than it is a law that requires control. No law ought to ever trump fine common sense. Without a doubt nobody ought to spend in prison their entire life (at the expense of taxpayers) for shoplifting a pair of socks nor must any person that cannot abstain from recurring violence be permitted to live in the society. Every case should be handled with care and caution as innocent persons should not be sent to imprisonment for life or for a longer time and violent, dangerous felonies should be removed from society and imprisoned.

References:

E.Cbemerinsky, (2002). Is California's "Three Strikes" Mandatory Sentencing Law "Cruel and Unusual Punishment"? PRO. Supreme Court Debates, 5(9), 264.

Daniel Marcet, (2011) Three strikes and you’re out: A triple differences Approach to Estimating the Deterrent Effect of California’s Three Strike Law