Criminal Justice -- Three Strikes Law
Decades ago, America got tough on crime, especially when it involved habitual offenders. In order to reduce crime, at least 26 states passed Three Strikes Law giving especially long sentences to those offenders. The original Three Strikes Law had consequences that outweighed the benefits, so many states have amended or otherwise revised Three Strikes, usually reducing or eliminating mandatory maximum sentences and giving judges more discretion. Perhaps the most striking example is California, which enacted a very tough Three Strikes Law in 1994, suffered serious consequences, and then "reformed" the law. While states still wish to be tough on crime, they want to ensure that the benefits of Three Strikes Law outweigh its consequences.
Body
Overall Rationale of Three Strikes Law
The overall rationale of the "Three Strikes Law" is the significant reduction of crime. It supposedly reduces crime in two ways: by making it more difficult for repeat offenders to commit even more crimes during extended incarceration; and by discouraging other offenders from committing more crimes due to the threat of Three Strikes sentencing (Brown & Jolivette, 2005). Imprisonment is supposed to modify the behavior of offenders and discourage...
Therefore, by increasing the costs of imprisonment by the three strikes law, it is intended that there will be less crime. Marwell and Moody express several difficulties with the laws in the 24 states: Criminals are not always aware of the laws, at least not initially; repeat criminals can be expected to serve substantial prison terms even in the absence of the laws; almost all of the states already
Introduction Californian lawmakers and citizens, in the year 1994, ratified a key amendment in the crime sentencing regulation of the nation (touted as ‘Three Strikes and You’re Out’ or the ‘Three Strikes Law’). Implemented by the state legislature under Chapter 12 of the 1994 Statutes (AB 971, Jones) and by California’s electorate under Proposition 184, one of the main elements of this regulation is that it mandates at least twenty-five years of life
Or, as Saletan points out, those three elements "by deduction, are the due process test" (2011). But this ought to leave a bad taste in one's mouth because all three of these elements can be manipulated to violate one's due process right. "Which leaves us with an awkward bottom line. If the target is a suspected terrorist, "imminence" can be redefined to justify killing him. If the weapon is a drone,
The Appeal Court reversed the decision declaring that 922(q) is invalid as it interfered in state matters. The Federal government did not have the right to interfere in matters such as possession of firearms in or near a school. The significance of the case is that it once again highlighted the limits of the power of the federal government. Chief Justice Rehnquist declared that the congress had the power to
This provision is based on the rationale that general damages do not represent financial loss to the injured person. A number of changes have also been made to the law in respect to assessment of damages for past and future economic loss. 4. The maximum amount of damages for economic loss due to loss of earnings or the deprivation or impairment of earning capacity is fixed at a rate of
Criminal Law Case Study Summarize the following cases: Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) This case involved a protest where 187 blacks filed a petition. They divided themselves into groups of fifteen people. They would protest in public areas. They wanted to air out grievances that their state had policy segregation. All of these had been organized to take place in South Carolina state house grounds. The strike was peaceful because
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now