You are most definitely correct Mark. The Three-strike laws are a good way to deter crimes. As stated on the Golden Gate University Law review, the Three-strike law has had a deterrent effect because it reduces felony arrests rates among the class of criminals with 1 strike by 29 to 48 percent (Goodno, 2010, p. 469). Statistically, it seems to somewhat stop repeat offenders. Bill Veeck is known for famously saying, “If you get three strikes, even the best lawyer in the world can’t get you off” (Demakis, 2012, p. 354). However, I don’t believe it provides hope. This is more like a scare tactic, which is normal, but we also should try more rehabilitation. My problem with the law is sometimes the felony charge does not seem as serious as others …show more content…
For instance, in California a man named Gary Ewing was charged with felony theft. Second, he was charged with a felony for steeling vehicles. Third he was charged for theft again. The man was caught stealing golf clubs at a shop nearby the course. Unfortunately, that was Ewing’s three strikes, which led him to life in prison. The problem is the man now has to serve life over 1,200 dollars worth of merchandise. People felt it was unfair to charge someone life in prison for a non-violent crime. Ewing fought it in court, but the Supreme Court denied his appeal. He eventually died in prison; sadly, his imprisonment did nothing but cost the state a ton of money. California at the time was struggling financially, and overcrowded prisons only made the situation worse. Lawyers and many citizens felt that he posed no threat to society. He was a young adult struggling with drug addiction and was convinced to steal to keep his addiction going. Does a man like that deserve life in prison? It can be debatable if you ask me. Luckily, in 2012 proposition 36 modified the law into ensuring that the felony must be serious or violent. Not every state carried out the Three-strike laws, but 28 states do
Between the states of Georgia and Ohio, he’d been locked up 19 times according to the Associated Press. Some of those convictions were for carrying a concealed weapon, robbery, and obstruction of a law enforcement officer, according to reports. His family actually lives in Brooklyn (the place where he ended up taking his own life), and he has a past history of trouble with police in that New York borough as
Wiley Bridgeman spent over half his life in prison for a crime he didn’t commit. In 1975 Bridgeman was one of three men falsely convicted and imprisoned for the murder of Harold Franks. Wiley Bridgeman was sentenced to life in prison after being charged with aggravated murder and robbery, but after a retrial almost 40 years later, he was found innocent and was able to spend the few remaining years of his life with his family. Wiley Bridgeman was 20 years old when he was accused of a crime he didn’t commit.
These laws were initiated in the 1970’s and put into action in the 1980’s. Ronald Reagan made these laws after initiating a war on the production, sale, and usage of illegal drugs. These laws insist on 5 years in prison for the first drug related felony, 10 years for the next felony sentencing, and 25 to life for the third felony. A process known as the three strikes rule. This campaign for the war on drugs has dragged out into current times.
Alexander identifies mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws as major contributors to the mass incarceration epidemic. Mandatory minimums are laws that attach mandatory prison sentences to certain kinds of offenses. These laws are controversial among judges, who tend to feel that they reduce judicial discretion and prevent them from handing down proportionate sentences. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has often ruled in favor of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Often ruling that while these sentences were harsh, they were not unconstitutional.
It's going to be hard because the standard story put the shocking story out which are not essential problems facing prison population. People more likely to gravitate that story rather than the story that could help the country. According to lock in, “in a survey of registered US voters by the Pew Research Center in early 2016, 44 percent of all residents said they believed that “reforming the criminal justice system should be a top priority”; the percentage rose to 73 percent for black respondents and 48 percent for Hispanics" (Pfaff,2017, P5). People have faith in reforming the justice system. This survey was carried to see if people are satisfied with the justice system and have the voter’s responses that they believe it should reform.
Over the past 40 years U.S. incarceration has grown at an extraordinary rate, with the United States’ prison population increasing from 320,000 inmates in 1980 to nearly 2.3 million inmates in 2013. The growth in prison population is in part due to society’s shift toward tough on crime policies including determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing laws, and mandatory minimums. These tough on crime policies resulted in more individuals committing less serious crimes being sentenced to serve time and longer prison sentences. The 1970s-1980s: The War on Drugs and Changes in Sentencing Policy Incarceration rates did rise above 140 persons imprisoned per 100,000 of the population until the mid 1970s.
The current system that incarcerates people over and over is unsustainable and does not lower the crime rate nor encourage prisoner reformation. When non-violent, first time offenders are incarcerated alongside violent repeat offenders, their chance of recidivating can be drastically altered by their experience in prison. Alternative sentencing for non-violent drug offenders could alleviate this problem, but many current laws hinder many possible solutions. Recently lawmakers have made attempts to lower the recidivism rates in America, for example the Second Chance Act helps aid prisoners returning into society after incarceration. The act allows states to appropriate money to communities to help provide services such as education, drug treatment programs, mental health programs, job corps services, and others to aid in offenders returning to society after incarceration (Conyers, 2013).
In this day and age, There are five times as many people in jail as there were in the 1970s. Almost 5 percent of the population of the United States will go to prison at in point of their life. Conservatives believe that imprisonment reduces crime in two ways: it removes criminals from the public so they can not commit more crimes, and it also discourages people who would commit a crime as they consider the consequences. Unfortunately, neither of these outcomes have come to be true. In fact, mass incarceration and “tough on crime” laws have been extremely ineffective that instead of reducing crime, it increases it.
The first case that I’m going to talk about is the Erma Faye Stewart case and Regina Kelly case. These two women were charged with felony drug distribution charges. This case took place in Hearne, Texas back in 2000. Stewart and Kelly along with 25 other men were charged in this case. Everybody bail was set to 70,000 each.
He was arrested the 21st of April in 2003 and is still on death row till this day. Evidence revealed during the case, Scott Peterson is a coward and was rightfully sentenced the death penalty for his wrong doings. Scott was arrested he was convicted of a double homicide and murder without bail. The trial started and they chose six men and six women to be the jury. When the parents found out of these charges they decided to sue him so he couldn’t sell his story for money.
As a member of society, there will be times where we would need to break the law in an important occasion. The laws were made for our society to be safe and they also serve as a protection of an individual’s rights. Laws prevent people from getting hurt or getting into situations they might regret later in their lives. But there will be scenarios where we would need to break the law for our protection, protection of our family, or in a state of an emergency. Breaking the law would be acceptable if lives are in danger or to prevent an even more serious law being made.
Motivation is a key factor; many criminals are motivated by desires, rage and desperation. It is very possible that criminals are not thinking rationally when committing a crime. In other words, the severity of a punishment is largely irrelevant when criminals are not thinking clearly at the time, the very fact that they committed the crime in the first place is already evident that they never considered the consequences. Therefore, it is untrue that harsher punishments are more