On March 7, 1994, the governor of California signed into law the "Three Strikes" legislation (Harris & Jesilow, 2000, P185). The law was originally set in place to hold those who committed serious felony offenses accountable for their second and third convictions, and intended to send a “…message to those who would prey on the innocent” (Harris & Jesilow, 2000, P185). The second offense would include penalty twice the prison term and a third would result in a sentence three times the normal stint given or a term of twenty-five years to life, whichever is greater. The “Three Strikes” law significantly disrupted the efficiency of the court system by increased trials and greater workloads and made predictions of case outcomes difficult. The “Three Strikes” law not only cause and influx of work and jail population but was also ineffective in “punishing” those who were committing the crimes, eventually leading to a revision of the law in 2012.
The inefficiency in the judicial system was due to first-time felony convictions being more likely to go to trial instead of a plea offer. Prisons were quickly becoming over populated and judges were resorting to dismissing cases in the interest of justice. Prosecutors would
…show more content…
Jury nullification is the constitutional power that jurors have to say not guilty, even if they think a defendant technically did commit a crime. They may feel that the law is unfair or it's selectively applied to the case (Butler,1995). The “Three Strikes” law caused the observance of harsh and extensive sentencing which could have been turned around with the assistance of jury nullification. Which would have prevented non-violent offenders from serving long sentences that do not fit the
In the spring of 1994, California’s Three Strikes was signed into law. It passed with the support of 72 percent of the state’s voters. (Gladwell 236) This law became highly controversial, and on November 6, 2012, voters passed Proposition 36, which amended the law with two primary provisions. Through the controversy, we must take a minute to remember how this law came to be. Mike Reynolds lost his daughter in June of 1992 to murder.
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.
The Three Strikes Law states that a penalty enhancement should be handed down to anyone who had previously been convicted of one or more supposedly serious or violent felonies. Under the same laws, an offender who had previously been convicted of a violent or serious felony, regardless of how diminished it may be, face the risk of double-sentencing under the guidelines of the second strike. On the other hand, a third- strike sentencing guideline is applied when an offender with two or more previous crimes is convicted. Under this guideline, a minimum of twenty-five years to life is applied. However, for the third-strike sentence to be passed, the previous crimes committed must be either violent or serious.
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged, according to Doug Linder. The jury will nullify a law because it believes that it wrongly applies to the particular defendant. Is this right or wrong? Should a jury have the right to override the law? Juries have the power to nullify a law, but do they have the right to?
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
California’s Three Strikes Law was implemented in order to improve public safety. The murders of Polly Klaas and Kimber Reynolds caused the citizens of California to request a reactive measure in order to improve California’s preventive safety measures. Polly Klaas and Kimber Reynolds were both murdered by repeat offenders. The murders resulted in a public outcry and a petition was started in order to improve the sentencing requirements for repeat offenders (Skelton, 1993). The Three Strikes Law became a source of controversy due to the fact that many people argued that the law was in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which states that, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
According to our textbook, the three-strike policy is defined as “when people commit a third felony (a third “strike”), they are sentenced to life in prison” (280). The three-strike policy is only one example of how the legislators have tried to pass several laws which is basically meant to send more individuals to prison for longer sentences. The three-strike policy was passed and was put into effect. Many individuals believe that the three-strike policy is unethical and just plain cruel, while other individuals believe that the three-strike policy is a wonderful idea and that it would work out great.
As a result of truth-in-sentencing practices, the State prison population is expected to increase through the incarceration of more offenders by keeping them incarcerated for longer periods of time. Abadinsky, Howard, Probation and Parole, Theory and Practice, St. John’s University, Pearson, Twelfth
Defined as a public policy that imposes an outlined amount of prison time based on the crime committed and the defendant’s criminal history, these sentences dictate that a judge must enact a statutory fixed penalty on individuals convicted of certain crimes, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Such laws have removed discretionary sentencing power from judges, instead focusing on severe punishments in line with national drug and crime concerns. While the original goal of mandatory minimum sentences was to deter potential criminals, reduce drug use, control judicial prudence, the policy has had extreme consequences such as sentencing imbalances and
How Sentencing Affects the State and Federal Prison Systems The United States
Stop and Frisk Stop and Frisk, the tactic that has been going on for only for short time, yet there seems to be racial tension already. But is this new information actually true or is it just good policing? According to Heather Mac Donald from the Manhattan Institute, says “what looks like racial profiling might just be good policing”. However according to Ranjana Natarajan from the Washington post “it’s clear that two issues need to be addressed: racial profiling and police use of excessive force.” Unfortunately we cannot have both ways.
The United States has a larger percent of its population incarcerated than any other country. America is responsible for a quarter of the world’s inmates, and its incarceration rate is growing exponentially. The expense generated by these overcrowded prisons cost the country a substantial amount of money every year. While people are incarcerated for several reasons, the country’s prisons are focused on punishment rather than reform, and the result is a misguided system that fails to rehabilitate criminals or discourage crime. This literature review will discuss the ineffectiveness of the United States’ criminal justice system and how mass incarceration of non-violent offenders, racial profiling, and a high rate of recidivism has become a problem.
For decades now, the controversy over deadly force has continued to show up in the news when police officers have acted in a manner that some citizens find just while others deem completely unfair. Many lawsuits stemming from shootings and crimes have found their way to local courts or the Supreme Court to deal with this issue. A portion of the U.S. population finds deadly force unnecessary when non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray or batons just as easily subdue the criminal. In addition, these citizens argue that officers might be liable for cases filed against them if they use excess force on people that seem suspicious but have not actually committed a crime. On the other hand, the opposing argument in favor of deadly force states that
There are many pros and cons when it comes to the use of police force. The use of force is strictly a part of the job requirement of protecting and serving our community. It is the everyday battles that force police to make decisions that may seem a bit harsh at times. The use of force is only acceptable under certain circumstances and should only be used when absolutely needed. There are cases when civilians are saved by the use of police force, and there are cases when innocent people are hurt or even killed by the use of police force.
Capital Punishment is the death penalty for those who commit murder. The thought behind this punishment is a life for a life. There has been debate on if the death penalty is right or wrong. Some poeple want the death penalty to be illegal while others argue it is needed to deter crime. There are many valid arguments regarding the death penalty.