Three Strikes Law - Research Paper Example

Three Strikes Law An increasing number of crimes in the s have man d the government bodies to enact laws that help to limit the scope of the criminals and deter crime from the states. In this course, many states in America have enacted three strikes law in order to reduce habitual repetition of violent crimes. Focusing on these aspects, the report critically analyzes the benefits and flaws related with the Three Strikes Law in delivering justice to people and assisting the criminal justice system. Additionally, the paper focuses on the eligibility of probation in South Carolina with respect to the law. Introduction Crime certainly imposes an adverse effect on the socio-economic development of any nation. Furthermore, an increase in crime rate affects the reputation of the nation substantially, particularly in terms of safety and security services provided to the citizens or to the tourists. Eventually, efforts have been continuously made to reduce the intensity of crime to the possible extent. In recent years, various legislative initiatives have been enforced to deal with crime and criminals effectively. Among these legislative initiatives, the Three Strikes Law was enacted to control crime and reduce the growing rate of criminals in an efficient way to ensure adequate security of the general public and their properties. In the beginning of 1993, many states and federal governments in the US adopted the system of Three Strikes Law, intending to halt and target repeated violence by habitual offenders. To be precise, the law declares that a minimum of 25 years of imprisonment will be imposed to offenders who have committed three repeated crimes being categorized as felony offenders (Criminal Justice Policy Coalition, 2012). Correspondingly, the law has been supported by a large number of people and experts who expect that the enactment might have a significant impact on reducing the increasing rate of crime and consequently the number of offenders. Three Strikes Law and Justice In recent years, the increased population of the US has been accompanied with a growing number of crime rates. Consequently, the Three Strikes Law was enacted to limit the scope of crime and offenders in various stated of the US. Washington and California were the initial states in the US to adopt Three Strikes Law in 1993 and 1994, respectively. Since its implementation, the law has been majorly influencing the prison population. During the first decade, after the enforcement of law, more than 80,000 second strikers and about 75,000 third strikers were sent to state prisons (Three Strikes Information, 2005). It has significantly helped the state and federal governments to reduce the number of violent crimes, subsequently enhancing the role and performance of justice system practiced in the US. It is worth mentioning in this regard that the law applies for three repeated convictions and not the three repeated crimes. In this context, the Three Strikes Law is also applicable to those convicts who have committed different crimes in repeated instances. However, it should be noted in this context that the crimes must be subjected to the category of felony in accordance to the jurisdiction practiced within the nation. Accordingly, the law requires minimum of 25 years of imprisonment or life imprisonment for those offenders who have been convicted for at least three repeated instances because of committing the felony. Despite, the effectiveness of the law many people have criticized and stated the law as an unusual and cruel way of punishment (Misner, 1996). The law increases the incarceration of the individuals convicted for violent acts or felony, repeatedly for at least three times. With its enforcement, social and justice system in the US strives to reduce the rate of offenders committing repeated crimes. According to the crime statistics of 1995, California witnessed a radical drop in crime rate of 8.5 percent immediately after the implementation of the law in 1994. The enforcement of law further helped reducing the rates of crime including burglaries, robberies, motor-vehicle thefts and rapes. The law also significantly increases the length of sentences for the repeated offenders and fixes the flawed justice system by detaining convicts indulged in repeated habitual and violent offenses. Subsequently, the law has been able to deter many crimes from the states, such as consuming drugs and involvement of minors in violent offenses (Schiraldi, Colburn & Lotke, 2009). Flaws of the Three Strikes Law According to the University of California Three Strikes Law have not contributed enough in reducing the violent crimes; rather, the law has augmented the financial costs associated with the increased number of prison populations. Many critics have thus argued against the enforcement of the Three Strikes Law. Additionally, they have strongly criticized the state and federal governments for wasting valuable monetary resources, behind the prisoners who have also been convicted for petty crimes (Rackauckas, 2007). According to them, the law is unprecedentedly engaged in the imprisonment of those offenders who are convicted for non-violent crimes such as shoplifting and petty offenses. Consequently, the Three Strikes Law can be considered as too harsh on offenders, especially if the Third Strike Crime is not serious or violent as the Three Strikes Law claims equal imprisonment, i.e. minimum of 25 years or life sentence. Instead in such cases, the tendency of murder gets increased among the criminals who may think that their minor offense may provide them with little mercy or relaxation motivating them to commit serious offences (Middle School Public Debate Program, 2012). Furthermore, the law does not provide flexibility in decision making to prosecutors and judges limiting their scope of defending the plaintiff and prohibiting them from making decisions based on the intensity of the crime. The law with increased length of imprisonment has therefore proven to be burdened to the over-crowded prisons in the states (Criminal justice policy coalition, 2012). Probation with the Sentences According to the criminal laws enforced in the US, offenders are subjected to probation for certain specified time. However, if the offenders decipher a good behavior, they are released from the probation custody. On contrary, if the convicts fail to meet the certain specified terms of their probation agreement, officials may confine them indefinitely in jails. However, the Three Strikes Law prohibits the offenders from probation if he/she re-commits a crime. Instead, the culprit is subjected to double sentences, by default for the conduct of a second time criminal act. Similarly, the law stresses on 25 years sentences or life sentences if the convict re-offends for at least three times. The legislative with the aspect of probation, thus attempts to reduce the possibilities of re-offending and eventually, encourages the criminal to display good behavior. According to the law, all the re-offenders (second strikers) are released from the jail or the prison only after the completion of their sentences. However, third strikers are released only if State Board of Parole Hearing (BPH) approves it. For instance, a third striker, who has been sentenced for entire life, after completion of 25 years in prison, the BPH conducts a hearing relating to the strikers release. If the BPH finds that the convict needs to be given an opportunity for correcting himself/herself, he/she is released. In contrast, if the BPH panel finds that the convict do not deserve to be released, he/she is retained for serving the life sentence. Similarly, the second strikers are also supervised by the probation officers after the strikers are released from the prisons. If they violate the probation terms, they are further placed back in the prisons. In such cases the second striker’s sentences is deemed to get doubled (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). Probation Issues and South Carolina In South Carolina, a person who is convicted for a second time for the violent and habitual crimes is subjected to life sentence without parole or probation control. As a result there were no third strikes recorded in South Carolina after the enforcement of the Three Strikes Law. The convicts are granted or eligible for probation only in the case of first offenses. However, in the later stages the authorities do not provide the convicts with the option of probation treating them as liable for a minimum of 25 years or life imprisonment, even if the convicts are engaged in minor criminal acts such as stealing or shoplifting. Accordingly, such laws can be regarded as cruel and unusual. With the enforcement of such laws, offenders who had already been imprisoned for first strike due to non-violent and petty offenses may have the tendency of committing more hazardous and violent crimes, owing to their grudge. Consequently, the law fails to distinguish the intensity of the crime committed and therefore it may result in an increased number of violent crimes (South Carolina Legislature, 2011). Conclusion The Three Strikes Law was enacted with a motive to reduce the occurrences of repeated felony offenses. The act was first enforced in Washington in 1993 and later in California in 1994. According to the law, the convicts, who are indulged in at least three repeated criminal offences, are liable for life imprisonment or an imprisonment of a minimum of 25 years. Offenders who have already been convicted for the first offense may be eligible for probation where the convicts are released and supervised according to the specified probation agreement. However, if the convict fails to coincide with the terms of the probation or if convicted for a second instance, the sentence automatically gets doubled. Hence, many experts have criticized and argued against the law to be unusual and inhuman. Subsequently, South Carolina does not grant convicts with the third strike; rather, the convicts are life sentenced in their second strike. Unlike, other states in the US, South Carolina grants probation only to those convicts who are convicted for the first time while the second and third strikers are not eligible for probation. References Criminal Justice Policy Coalition. (2012). Three strikes the wrong way to justice. Institute Forrace & Justice, pp. 6-25. Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2005). A primer: three strikes - the impact. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm Middle School Public Debate Program. (2012). California should eliminate its “Three Strikes” law. Retrieved from http://www.middleschooldebate.com/documents/threestrikes.pdf Misner, R. (1996). Recasting prosecutorial discretion. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 86(3), pp. 717-777 Rackauckas, T. (2007). Debunking the myths attacking California’s three strikes law and demonstrating its effectiveness in protecting the people of California. The Journal of the Institute for the Advancement of Criminal Justice (1), pp. 22-27 Schiraldi, V., Colburn, J. & Lotke, E. (2009). An examination of the impact of 3 strike laws 10 years after their enactment. A Policy Brief By The Justice Policy Institute, pp. 2-23. South Carolina Legislature. (2011). Eligibility for diversion programs, persons on parole or probation, excluding violent offenders. Retrieve from http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/1154.htm Three Strikes Information. (2005). Impact of three strikes on the criminal justice system. Three Strikes The Impact After More Than A Decade, pp. 3-35. Bibliography Domanick, J. (2004). Cruel Justice: Three Strikes and the Politics of Crime in Americas Golden State. United States of America: University of California Press. Read More