¶ … Three Strikes dealing crime prevention Support post examples required reading material / scholarly sources, provide -text citation APA style. Page 2 Activity: How Much Are Americans Spending Corrections?
Describe and explain three strikes when dealing with crime and crime prevention 'Three strikes and you're out' laws, as their name implies, mandate "a minimum sentence of 25 years to life for three-time repeat offenders with multiple prior serious or violent felony convictions" (A primer: Three strikes, 2005, LAO). One of the first 'three strikes' laws was passed in California in 1994, based on evidence of chronic recidivism amongst a hardcore group of offenders. The philosophy behind the law was that it was intended to protect the public from inflicting the dangers of these hardened classes of criminals upon the public and implied that certain criminals were to some extent 'behind rehabilitation.'
Passing three strikes laws have the nearly-immediate effect of rapidly increasing the numbers of persons incarcerated within the prison system: "For example, consider a defendant who has prior convictions for assault on a police officer and burglary of a residence, both considered serious or violent crimes. Subsequently, he is convicted for receiving stolen property, a nonserious and nonviolent felony. Before the enactment of Three Strikes, he would typically have served two years for the property offense. Under the Three Strikes law, he would be sentenced to life in prison" (A primer: Three strikes, 2005, LAO). Many legal scholars have argued that this violates the principle of proportionality in justice.
In one case, Ewing v. California, the defendant was sentenced to life behind bars for stealing some golf clubs. He argued that this was cruel and unusual punishment under the Constitution. Ultimately, however, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction. Still, there is a growing question of whether the sharp increase in numbers of inmates can be financially supported by the resources of states. Of persons convicted under the laws in California, "44% of all inmate strikers were convicted of a serious or violent current offense, while 56% were convicted of nonserious or nonviolent offenses" for their third crime (A primer: Three strikes, 2005, LAO). The wisdom of keeping such individuals behind bars for long sentences, many argue, is questionable. Supporters contend "some offenders who are incarcerated for longer periods under Three Strikes are unable to commit additional crimes that result in victim-related government costs (for example, health care costs)" but the law's detractors point to the fact that the national drop in crime rates predated the widespread enforcement of three strikes legislation in most states (A primer: Three strikes, 2005, LAO).
Page 2: Activity: How much are Americans spending for corrections?
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.