three strikes

three strikes - In 1990, the federal justice system of the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
In 1990, the federal justice system of the United States enacted a controversial policy that would become known as the Three Strikes law. Under this policy, courts are required to apply mandatory incarceration – often for periods extended a great deal further than would be found in similar situations of incarceration – for those convicted of a serious criminal offense on three separate occasions. The theory behind the implementation of the Three Strikes law is that pervasive criminal activity is the sign of chronic criminality that normal methods of correction are ineffective in dealing with. Thus, these pervasive criminals are jailed for more lengthy periods as a way to uphold public safety. Naturally, critics of the Three Strikes law are vocal in their dissent. Ultimately, they argue, these laws are incapable of considering issues of circumstantial justice in which a judge can uniquely consider certain cases on internal merit rather than being directed and, in many ways, involuntarily compelled by external forces. This flexibility for judges, it is argued, is necessary as not all repeat offenders threaten public safety inherently. Further, many point that these policies only serve to perpetuate a criminal’s offenses due to the highly politicized nature of the Three Strikes law. Often in an attempt to appear harder on crime, politicians will react to high-profile cases with a feeling of extreme prejudice, nearly to Draconian practices. As a result more minor cases are afflicted with harsher punishments as a result of this same “hard on crime” stance. Failure to incorporate or even consider aspects of rehabilitation perpetuate a cycle of crime in which the punishment no longer fits the deed. It is important to consider the impacts of Three Strikes law and potential reform because of its innately flawed nature. At its core, the law has begun to target offenders who have no history of violent crime and receive obscene sentences for relatively petty
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
offenses. However, it is not simply this fact that puts a strike against the Three Strikes law. We must also consider the unequal treatment of criminals within the system due to the Three Strikes law. Often, repeat offenders do not commit crimes multiple times due to an innate desire to commit pervasive crime, but rather due to societal constructs that generate citizens prone to commit crimes more than once. These repeat offenders are typically members of a minority class – often African-American – rarely possess a high school education, live at or below the poverty line, and often receive poor defense or corrupt prosecution in trial 1 . Studies have shown that criminals from this group are most prone to reform mechanisms due to the fact that their activity is not innately criminal, but simply learns toward unlawful activity due to lack of access 2 . Thus, policies of reform should be at the forefront of the concern so as to alleviate the problem of underserved citizenry. And this is the core of why considering Three Strikes law reform is important. Failing to do so places undue strain on our criminal justice system, forcing it to process
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This essay was uploaded on 04/16/2008 for the course LAWS 101 taught by Professor Mathews during the Spring '06 term at UCSD.

Page1 / 12

three strikes - In 1990, the federal justice system of the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online