Understanding the Impact of the Three Strikes Laws to Offenders and to Law Enforcement - Essay Example

Understanding the Impact of the Three Strikes Laws to Offenders and to Law Enforcement and Providing Strategies on How to Implement these Laws I. Introduction The three strikes laws mandate that habitual offenders should be meted with higher punishments compared to first time offenders (Zimring, et. al., 2001). The term “three strikes” was actually taken from rules of baseball where the batter is given two strikes before he or she is declared out. In applying this rule to offenders, the three strikes laws significantly increases the prison term of people who have been previously convicted of other forms of offenses (Zimring, et. al., 2001). The general intent of the framers of these laws is to deter offenders from committing another crime for fear of being given harsher punishment (Zimring, et. al., 2001). Since the court can impose very high penalty when the offender is convicted for the third time, most offenders would be more careful not commit another offence especially after the second strike. Over the years, different states across the country have adopted the three strike laws. At present, the following states implement this law Washington, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, North Dakota, Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, Florida, Tennessee and Virginia (White, 2006). The effects of the three strikes laws and their implementation vary from state to state. Some states require that all three crimes committed should be violent crimes while others apply the three strike laws if the two previous crimes committed by the person is either serious or violent or both (White, 2006). For instance, in the state of California, if a person has been convicted three times, that person may be given the mandatory 25-to-life sentence (Zimring, et. al., 2001). The harsh punishments given to habitual criminals helped cut the crime rates especially in the state of California (Reynolds, 2004). II. Issues and Problems of the three strike laws Although the enactment of the three strikes laws provide strong deterrent to commit crimes, these laws also have weaknesses and these weaknesses often create problems in the implementation of the laws. According to critics, a large number of repeat offenders actually slip from the law without being charged so they may not be subjected to the three strikes law (White, 2006). Critics of these laws believe that the application of one-size-fits-all sentence to repeat offenders is unfair and unreasonably harsh (Reynolds, 2004). We have to understand that there are instances when the crime committed by the offender is not so serious but because the offender has records of conviction beforehand, he or she gets higher penalty than necessary. Of course there is a need to deter people from committing crimes and the three strike laws provide just that but the fact still remains that the people whom these laws punish also have rights and they are entitled to be protected from unreasonable harsh punishments. Over the years, there have been a number of cases which highlights the unfairness of the three strikes laws under certain circumstances. A good example of how unfair the law can be is the case of Lockyer v Adrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), where the offender was given the mandatory sentence of 25 years to life in prison by the state of California for stealing video tapes. Note that in this case, the offender has been in and out of prison and has been convicted of petty theft, residential burglary, transportation of marijuana, and escape from prison. Since the offender has been convicted twice already, the court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison based on the provisions of the three strikes law of the State of California. Another example of how unreasonable the three strikes law can be is the case of Rummel v. Estelle 445 U.S. 263 (1980) where the Supreme Court upheld the life sentence of the offender based on the three strikes law. What is very sad about this case is that the offender was sentence to life imprisonment for a fraud crime amounting to $120.75 only. Although these two cases are quite unique in themselves and there have been many causes which illustrate the usefulness of the three strike laws in punishing habitual criminal offenders, still, the cases of Rummel v Estelle and Lockyer v Adrade give us a clear picture of how a law can be unfair to the point of being oppressive. We have to understand that some of the offenders who were convicted under these laws did not really commit big crimes but since they have committed more than one crime, they end up being incarcerated for life. Aside from having a big impact on offenders, the three strike laws also affect law enforcement both positively and negatively. On the positive side, the three strikes law can help reduce crimes so law enforcement agencies will no longer have to stretch its resources too thinly to protect the public. On the negative side, the three strikes laws pose hazards to police officers who arrest habitual criminals. Since criminals with records could be meted with harsh penalties, many of these habitual offenders to everything to elude law enforcement agents (Johnson, et. al., 2005). In fact, some of these offenders fight back during arrest resulting to casualties on the side of the law enforcement agents (Johnson, et. al., 2005). This situation does not only put the officers in harms way, it also forces the offenders to be more combative during arrest. III. Current Views of the Court Regarding the Three Strikes Law Despite the fact the criticisms against the three strikes laws, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the cases of Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) and in the case of Lockyer v Adrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) said that this law as valid and does not violate the provisions of the Eight Amendment. How did the implementation of the three strikes laws turn out to be this way? According to the Supreme Court in the case of Lockyer v Adrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003), the punishment given to the offender in this case was not unusual or cruel since the three strikes law clearly provide that offenders who have been convicted two times shall be given more severe punishment on the third conviction and since these laws are meant to deter criminals from committing another crime, providing severe punishments to repeat offenders is but a logical consequence. The general idea here is that putting criminals behind bars effectively incapacitates the criminal so he or she cannot do another crime or hurt another person. In the case of Ewing v California, the Supreme Court said that there is reasonable basis for believing that enhanced sentences for habitual offenders can advance the goals of the criminal justice system and by imposing long sentence on these criminals, the state is able to incapacitate these criminals and reduce the crime rates on the streets. While many sectors including the Supreme Court are in favor of the three strike laws, there are also some who are not happy with it. The fact that this law has the potential of putting people in jail for a long time even if they did not commit very serious crimes, make it oppressive to some extent (Campbell, 2002). Moreover, the fact that these laws have the potential of putting law enforcement officers in harms way during arrest make these laws potentially hazardous to law enforcement agents. According to Johnson, et. al., (2005), there is strong evidence that offenders who are on their last strike are more likely to attack the arresting police officers out of desperation than criminals who are not yet on their third strikes. We have to understand that when the offender realizes that he or she will go to jail for a very long time if arrested and convicted for the third time, he or she will certainly want to elude arrest and in the process of trying to elude arrests, he or she becomes violent. When this happens, either the police end up hurting and even killing the offender or the offender hurts or kills the arresting police officers. Either way, the result is still not good for both parties. IV. Recommendations to Legislators Generally, the three strikes laws are very important statutes that can help reduce the amount of crimes in a given state but it is not foul proof. The present three strikes laws implement by different states have flaws that must be corrected in order for these laws to be more effective. To make these laws more equitable and effective, there is a need to do away with the one-law-fits-all policy and we need define clearly the types of crimes which must be subject to three strikes. We have to understand that crimes happen in different manners and settings thus we cannot just take all these crimes and lump them together as if their magnitude and impact on society are of the same degree. Aside from defining the different types of crimes that are subject to the three strikes laws, there is also a need to define the punishments of the different crimes involved instead of simply imposing the maximum penalty on the offender. Different crimes need to be meted with certain degrees of punishment and even if the offender has committed and has been convicted with certain crimes before, if these crimes were not so serious or violent, the maximum penalty should be imposed on the offender. By defining the different penalties that can be imposed for certain types of crimes, we will be able to avoid sending people to jail for the rest of their lives because they shoplifted a few pieces of video tapes. Giving one punishment for different types of crimes does not only ruin the flexibility of the courts, it can also result to unfair punishments as what happened in the case of Andrade. Instead of imposing the maximum penalty on the third strike, the courts should be given the discretion and flexibility when it comes to imposing penalties. This way, the court will be able to determine the appropriate punishment based on the facts of the case and the mitigating circumstances that are present. Again, let me point out that the different cases have different elements present thus it is very important to judge the offence according to the elements of the crime and not just summarily impose penalties on the offender simply because he or she is already on the third strike. When determining the penalty to be imposed upon the offender, legislators need to take into consideration the age of the offender at the time of the commission of the crimes. Some young people commit petty crimes without really meaning to harm others and once these young people get convicted for the crimes they committed, their records can be used against them when they commit other crimes in the future. In order to prevent imposing very long sentences on offenders who committed petty crimes when they were young, legislations need to qualify the three strikes rules to take into account the age of the offender at the time of the commission of the crimes. References Campbell, Duane (26 January 2002). "Three strikes and youre out — Human rights, US style: As Americans shrug off criticism of Camp X-Ray, thousands of their countrymen suffer cruel but all-too-usual punishment". The Guardian.  Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) Johnson, Jeffry L.; Saint-Germain, Michelle A. (2005). "Officer Down: Implications of Three Strikes for Public Safety". Criminal Justice Policy Review 16 (4): 443–460.  Lockyer v Adrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) Reynolds, Mike (2004). 3 strikes 1994-2004: A decade of difference. Three Strikes and You′re Out. http://www.threestrikes.org/TenYearReport04.pdf. Rummel v. Estelle 445 U.S. 263 (1980) White, Ahmed A. (Spring 2006). The Juridical Structure of Habitual Offender Laws and the Jurisprudence of Authoritarian Social Control. The University of Toledo Law Review 37 (3): 705. Zimring, Franklin E.; Hawkins, Gordon; Kamin, Sam (2001). Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and Youre Out in California. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More