Describe Three-Strikes Law Research Assignment Paper

Three Strikes Laws
Name
Institution
Three Strikes Laws
Introduction
The three strikes have gained prominence in 1994 after California State adopted the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” punishment guidelines (Kovandzic , Sloan, & Vieraitis, 2004). Following the passage of these guidelines, the national government and majority of the states adopted or formulated sentencing laws that are similar to help in sentencing habitual offenders. The overall reduction in the rate of crime during the early days helped in reinforcing the belief that the law was good for the country. However, some researchers feel that the overall drop in the rate of crime was as a result of other factors outside legislation and that a general drop in the rate of crime was witnessed across the United States in the 1990’s (Auerhahn, 2004). This paper examines the history of the Habitual Offender Laws, as well as the pros and cons of the laws. The paper then gives the impact of these laws in the society and concludes by examining whether the laws are ethical or unethical.
The History of Three Strikes and You’re Out Laws
The Three Strikes and You’re Out laws have been adopted by legislators at both the national and the state levels. The legislations require that judges sentence law breakers who have been convicted three times for longer periods in prison. Directed towards repeat offenders, three strikes laws were designed on the belief that crime was on an upward trend and that a tough reaction will bring down the rate of crime. The laws are founded on the assumption that offenders that have been convicted for three times have no desire to conform to the set laws and as such they should be locked from the society for longer periods of time (Jennings, 2006).
The reasoning behind the three strikes rule is that if the cost of a behavior is higher than the profit, there will be a less likely chance of choosing the behavior. Once an individual continues to pursue a certain behavior despite the consequences, the cost should be increased in order to minimize the likelihood of the behavior. This problem with this approach is that it does not consider the other possible causes of criminal behavior and as such the only policies to reduce the crime are based on this theory. Although there are those who feel that the three strikes rule has helped in the reduction of crime, there is another part of the society which feels that the laws fail to follow the due process of the law and that it lacks fairness (Chen, 2008).
Despite the fact that the three strikes laws are a fairly recent phenomenon, the criminal justice system has for a long time identified the need of having longer sentences for repeat offenders. In the 17th century, both England and colonial America had rules that sought to confine repeat offenders for a longer time in prison. Throughout history, these laws have been controversial and in most places they were rejected before they could be used. Despite this disquiet, habitual offender laws have remained in use across the United States as the society views these laws as being necessary for punishing offenders who are viewed as being beyond rehabilitation. The challenge is that there is evidence which shows that even though the adoptions of the laws are necessary for the criminal justice system, they cause extra challenges for the system. This causes the laws to either be weakened or abandoned all together. Basically, this cycle is reenacted as sections of the society continue to call for measures to act tough on crime. The three strikes laws are the most recent case of this sequence of events (Caulkins, 2001).
The ability of the court to act with discretion is central to the debate on habitual offender laws. The laws ideally put curtail on judicial discretion while at the same time broadening the prosecutorial prudence. At the start of the 20th century, the habitual offender laws in existence allowed room for judge discretion and as such the sentencing depended on the judge’s discretion. In the United States, the premise for modern customary offender laws was founded in 1926 as the state adopted a law that sentenced third time offenders to a life in prison. Other states adopted this strategy and by 1948 a total of 48 states had a form of strict punishment scheme for repeat offenders. A large number of states realizing that judicial discretion is of paramount importance did not demand that the judge impose harsh sentences in cases where the judge did not believe that this was ideal (Peak, 2010).
This, however, began to change in the 1980’s as a section of the society began calling for tougher sentences to curb the runaway crime. This was mostly due to the widespread view that judges were being lenient on criminals and that for things to change, it was necessary to act tough on criminals. This saw the passage of legislations that did not factor judicial discretion in the passing of sentences. In recent, there have been renewed calls for judges to ‘get tough on crime, something that has led to an overruling of judicial discretion as it was the case in the past. Unlike in the past where the judge was supposed to determine the period to sentence the offender, today the focus is placed more on the role of incarceration in preventing criminal behavior something that has led to the politicization of sentencing (Chen, 2008).
The conservative political environment of the 1980’s and the early 1990’s was characterized by a general view that violent crime was quickly rising, even though the general rate of crime was lesser than that of past years. Apart from this widely held viewpoint, the political view was slowly turning towards how to punish the career criminals in the society. This viewpoint indicated that a small number of criminals were responsible for the high number of crimes in the society and as such to reduce the rate of crime it was necessary to come up with stiffer penalties for these criminals. This view was bolstered by recidivism rates which indicated that a large number of people who spent time in prison would commit other crimes and spend even more time in prison. Again, this viewpoint indicated that incarceration for an increased period of time would offer a solution to the perceived rise in criminal activities (Jennings, 2006).
Even though not founded on reality, the concerns on crime led to a re-examination of the three strikes rule. The prevailing political climate made it possible for the laws to be passed effortlessly. In the early 1990’s, twenty two states enacted three strikes rules within a period of three years. While Washington is considered to have been the first state to enact the three strikes law, the Californian version is considered to have been the most contentious, and the most reviewed of these laws. The Californian case offers a clear picture of the manner in which three strikes laws are adopted. Even as the law was being drafted, there was apparent evidence that the law would have a limited effect and a cost that greatly went beyond any expected profit (Auerhahn, 2004).
There are various things that are assumed to have triggered the California three strikes law. One of these was the 1992 case where someone who had a long history of crime murdered Kimber Reynolds. Kimber’s father was the first to work on the initial draft of the three strikes law. A bill that was founded on this draft was taken to the state parliament but was not adopted into law. Following the failure, the father decided to utilize the state initiative process to force the measure into a ballot. This process however proved to be slow as it required ...