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 …show more content…
The law was designed to reduce the amount of repeat offenders in the community and the rate of violent crimes. Originally, the policy had the support of California’s citizens and legislators. However, the public’s support wavered after many individuals who were accused of nonviolent or nonserious offenses were sentenced as a result of the law. For example, in the case of Ewing v. California, the defense cited the sentencing as being in violation of both the Eighth Amendment and the proportionality rule. As a result, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the provision was unconstitutional (Legislative Analyst’s Office, …show more content…
In 2004, Proposition 66 aimed to revise the Three Strikes Law by mandating a life sentence only if the third offense was serious or violent. It also would have removed eight crimes from the serious or violent category. The voters rejected the proposition by a narrow margin. There were 47% of voters on the affirmative side of the proposition. The narrow margin of defeat for the proposition revealed that the citizens of California were largely in favor of revising the policy (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). In 2012, Proposition 36 was approved by the voters in California. The amendment revised the Three Strikes Law by requiring a sentence of 25 years to life only if the third strike offense was serious or violent. Additionally, it allowed inmates who were serving a sentence of 25 years to life under the Three Strikes Law to petition for a sentence reduction if their third strike offense was not serious or violent (California Courts The Judicial Branch of California,
The 3 Strike Law is a law that applies to offender that have a history of being convicted of two or more violent crimes, and have moved on to committing another serious offense. Consequently, their prison sentence is increased in comparison to their previous sentences resulting in receiving a punishment to life in prison at their third offense. However, in 1994 the state of California enacted the law were criminals could be incarcerated when committing a non-violent crime for the third time, as long as they had a history of ever committing a serious or violent felony, the 3 Strike Law will still apply to them. The 3 strike Law is beneficial to society by removing the criminals off the street and preventing them from ever putting people at risk of being victimized by them again.
The proposition that i am interested in is California proposition 36. Proposition 36 is about making changes to the three strike law. The changes that were made when proposition 36 passed is that is that a life sentence is only applied if charged with a serious or violent crime,Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety,Continues to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession.",and Maintains the life sentence penalty for felons with "non-serious,
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.
However, as time passed, many raised voice about this being not as effective. According to criminologist David Kennedy, just by increasing the punishment, criminals who can’t think straight won’t be shaken by this. Only normal people, who have stakes in the society, will think twice before committing a crime. There is another reason many called the law to
This proposition gives criminals a strong opportunity to commit the crimes and at the same time receive fewer consequences. Because under this proposition it makes judges treat every criminals as if it were their first time going to court all though it could be their fourth time. Proposition 47 supports criminals in an unrealistic way. What I mean is that they are putting a lot of trust in to the recently accused felonies by releasing them for their changed crime to an
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, appellant, James Davis (“Davis”), was convicted of one count of robbery with a dangerous weapon, three counts of use of a handgun in a felony or crime of violence, three counts of first-degree assault, and one count of first-degree burglary. For his offenses, Davis was sentenced to a total of thirty years’ incarceration. Davis appealed his conviction and the computation of his sentences. We affirmed the judgments in an unreported opinion. Davis v. State, No. 2509, Sep. Term 2003 (Md. Ct.
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
Because that is a cruel and unusual punishment for a smaller crime like littering. The meaning and purpose of the 8th amendment has an enduring impact on many Americans lives. The whole 8th amendment from the Bill of Rights is, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive
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).
Since the earliest inception of a codified concept of crime and punishment the criminal justice system has been in a state of ever changing progress building on the philosophies of laws and their subsequent punishments from as far back as ancient times of human society. In this essay what will be looked at are the current policies and principals of punishment of the state of Texas with regards to specified and targeted crimes in particular the crimes of aggravated assault, and grand theft auto, as well it will be looked at to see if there are any new practices that may improve the current system that is in place or if any changes or modifications needs to be done. In centuries past the most common forms of punishment have their roots in
Issue 6- Does the Act violate the Procedural Due Process? Conclusion 1.
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
An amendment, and justice is ultimately what keeps the citizenry of the society safe each and every day, if anything. Although we are aware that ever state in America has not ratified the 8th amendment and that’s something that needs to change because if you think about it although the death penalty is a cheap option and easier way to get rid of criminals who could commit more crimes. You must take into the fact that no life should be taken, and that all lives matter even if serious crimes have been committed by that person. If the state has not ratified the amendment and refuses to then they should have certain policies, restrictions, etc. and be sure to follow
As a result of the increasing animosity of law enforcement authority and justice officials within our society, it has become apparent that the time for Congressional action is now to aid in calming the social fire storm of recent social anti-police movements, increased deadly ambushes upon unsuspecting police officers, and hateful rhetoric in the form of rebellious movements. So where should our nation’s leaders begin? Professor Paul George Cassell J.D. professor of Law at the University of Utah and former Unites States federal Judge suggests by starting with a reexamination of congressionally mandated mandatory minimum sentencing. In Cassell’s publication titled “Sense and Sensibility in Mandatory Minimum Sentencing” Cassell argues the unreasonableness of forcing mandatory minimum sentencing upon state courts when oftentimes, the punishment far exceeds the severity and/or social impact of the crime. As he explains within the text, “In practice, statutory minimums can distort the processes and outcomes of the federal system.
California overcrowding prisons conditions has gain National attention. The U.S. Supreme court has found that California is in violation of the 8th Amendment. California has been required to reduce their prison inmates by 40,000 inmates. California has utilized many options to reduce the inmate population within the prison system. California has to two years to reduce the inmates count in the prison system.