History And Controversies Of Three Strikes Policy
Introduction
The three strike policy was implemented in 1994 as a way of reducing the number of cases associated with repeat offenders. The implementation of the policy meant that second or third time offenders would have harsher punishments for their actions, which include sentences ranging from between 25 years and life. The introduction of the policy was viewed as one of the key approaches through which to reduce recidivism, which was one of the key issues facing not only California but also other states. However, it is important to take note of the fact that its introduction created major controversy considering that it resulted in a situation where convicts of minor offences were handed down harsh sentences for minor crimes. The focus for this research is to embark on an in-depth analysis of the three strike policy, as well as, evaluation of the controversies that the policy created.
History
The Three Strikes policy was created in 1994, in California. In America, when a person is convicted of committing a crime, he or she will be punished or sentenced in accordance with the severity of the crime. Individuals who commit violent crimes, especially those who are involved by causing harm or injury to another individual or a loss of life will be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Offenders with repeatedly crimes and those with penchants for committing crimes against children can expect to face extended incarceration, life in prison, or harsh penalties. In addition, offenders are subject to the Three Strikes Law depending on that state practices and are govern by this law.
The Three Strikes policy campaign started two years before the policy was created, by a man whose eighteen year old daughter was murdered by an offender with an extensive criminal record. The campaign did not achieve its expected effectiveness considering that the legislation was not affected. However, in 1993, a twelve year old girl was murdered in California, which resulted in the signing of a petition to enact the California State’s first legislation designed to deter repeat offenders. The petition was signed by more than eight hundred thousand people, which also enforced a stringent twenty-five years of life sentence on offenders who were convicted of a third consecutive criminal offense.
On March 7, 1994, Governor Wilson signed into Law AB 971. This law was refer as the Three Strikes and You’re Out criminal sentencing measure. During the course of the same year, registered voters in the State of California overwhelmingly voted for the approval of Proposition 184, which was an initiative that was somewhat similar that adopted in chapter 12. The law was later on expanded on the national scene in the mid-1990s. The president, Bill Clinton gave the idea a strong endorsement and many states jumped on the band wagon and passed the Three Strikes Law.
The introduction of the law brought some levels of judicially administrative improvements. There was about thousands of Cases Being Prosecuted. There are thousands of offenders being charged under the three strikes law. With a six month period after the enactment of the law, it was clear that it had gained root in the state with more than 7,400 second- and third-strike cases filed within different courts in the state. The number of guilty pleas reduced, which remained as one of the common occurrences in cases with approximately 90% of cases involving pleas. This seems to be changing as defendants were refusing to plea bargain and was taking their cases to jury trial, given the much longer prison sentences they face if convicted of a second- or third-strike offense.
After the enactment of the law, only 14% of all second-strike cases and only about 6 percent of all third-strike cases involved plea bargaining. That resulted from a situation where the law changed the way in which the district attorney operates when handling specific cases. In addition, there was an increase in jail security, and people in county jail awaiting trial under the Three Strikes law are considered high security inmates requiring closer supervision and restricted housing arrangements. As a result, some counties have modified their inmate security systems to better handle and track second- and third- strike inmates.
Controversy with the Three Strike Policy
Even though, the Three Strike law brought some positive changes in the at court proceedings it has many disparities and other problems. Over the years the three strikes laws have faced serious controversy. One of the most controversial aspects of the initial three strikes law was that the third strike need not be a conviction for a violent or serious crime. The enactment of the law meant that convictions, regardless of the nature of crime committed, would result in a 25 years to life sentence. For example Walker uses a felon that is convicted of theft for stealing a lawnmower, and his previous offense was involving a theft of a pizza, has the same measure of an offender that commits armed robbery or sexual assault (2015). The Three Strikes law did not take into account the relevant facts in the involvement of a crime or offence.
According to Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who is a lecturer of Law and Political Science, approximately 344 people are serving life sentences in California's prisons just for a minor crime such as shoplifting. On the other hand, studies also show that 650 individuals are serving life sentences for have small amounts of legal substances in their possession. The punishment and sentencing for California is very unfair and unjust for anyone. Thus, this sought to build on the overall controversy associated with the adoption of this particular policy attributed to the general impacts that it had on the criminal justice system in the State of California.
In addition, with the Three Strikes Law, because an offender is only punished or sentence for a longer period on his or her third strike, some criminals and much violated people had the chance to commit more crimes. The victims or lives would have been saved or some crimes could have been stopped if such criminals face a well deserving punishment of their first or second offence. In an example, a twelve year old girl named Polly was brutally murdered by Richard Allen Davis, who was out on parole and had been convicted for kidnapping prior to the murder of the young girl. Similar cases happened all across the country and the reactions of the majority of the public was, thought why were many criminals not in the prison system. The crime could have been prevented if the court had putting them in the prison for their first or second offence.
Alternatively, as a result of the three strikes laws our nation amassed the largest prison population in the world. The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) had an evaluation of the Law’s impact in California, which indicated that by 2004 more than forty-two thousand strikes were serving terms in the California prisons, this number add-up to about 25 percent of all prisoners in that State. This shows that more prisoners are incarcerated with the three strikes law in and the effect it increased the prison population, for other crimes being committed.
Current Policy
The three strikes policy is still in active in 28 states but it is not used that much in anymore, some states that still have this policy are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, just to name a few. California was the state they had the toughest three strikes law in the United States. However, this changed in 2000 after a court decision was made voters passed the proposition 36, which is the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, this required drug offenders to be eligible for drug treatment and counseling if an offense was committed. This shows that California has lessen the three strikes policy and offenders are given a second chance if are caught with illegal substances. California still uses three strikes policy for crimes such as sex crimes individuals involving a firearm and offenders with prior convictions that include rape, or sexual assault.
The current three strikes policy that is used in Georgia and Tennessee, data shows that if a felon is convicted of a serious crime which includes murder, armed robbery, kidnapping or rape they must be given a life sentence without the possibility of parole. These two states still use the three strikes law only for those serious crimes that are listed. Another example is New Hampshire, which has a maximum of thirty years for a prison sentence for a felon that commits the third offense. The three strikes law has many disadvantages for offenders, because they are more likely to be incarcerated.
Some disparities with the current three strikes policy, offenders are given harsher sentences by judges, and some sentences are discriminatory. Racial disparities are quite common with the three strikes law, and sentencing differs for each race. Walker mentions in the text that African American men are incarcerated more than the whites, the incarceration rate was 143 per 100,000 and the incarceration rate for whites is 12 per 100,000 (2015). This data alone shows that racial disparities do exist and that African American men are imprisoned more than white man this is unfair and unjust, because three strikes policy sentencing should be equal for every race.
Policy Recommendations
My proposal for the three strikes policy is that all serious offenders which commit class a felonies that include crimes such as rape, murder and kidnapping, and other first degree offenses. Their cases should be revisited, class a felons should not be given three strikes under this law they should be given an appropriate sentence, depending on the severity of the crime. This proposal would work because it would deter serious offenders from committing future crimes and, also it would reduce the crime rate because, potential offenders would know the sentencing and consequences for sentences committed. Racial disparity would not exist with this proposal because all offenders would be given an appropriate sentence based on the crime.
Walker mention early that African American incarceration rate is 143 per 100,000 and the incarceration rate for white is 12 per 100,000 people being incarcerated. With this proposal all racial groups are given the same sentencing depending on the severity of the crime that was committed for class a felon. A case that should be revisited is the case of Polly Klaas in California, in which Richard Davis, who was already out on parole for two prior convictions which included kidnapping, murdered her. This case will definitely apply to the proposal because Davis would have been given a set sentence the first time instead of given three strikes. Davis was definitely a repeat offender and he did not deserve the three strikes law for the heinous crimes committed.
When revisiting and evaluating the cases for class a felon it would be costly at first, because an attorney would be assigned the case again review and work on the case, and offender would have to revisit the courtroom again and appear in front of a judge for a second trial, which would include, a juror for most trials and they would have to be paid by the state as well. This proposal will be cost effective long term wise, because if offenders cases are revisited and they are given set sentence for the crime, it will reduce the caseloads in the future offenders will be given an equal and just sentence the first time, and they will not have to revisit the courtroom. This will also have an impact on the courtroom work group, because the attorneys would be able to move through the dockets more efficient. Policy makers might disagree with the policy, because it is in fact costly at first. To revisit each case is going to be costly for the courtroom work group, and it would add more dockets, as well but for the future it will set the standard for any other class a felon that commits a crime. They would already know what there sentencing is going to be for the crime committed. This proposal would have some obstacles as well, attorneys might complain because of their massive caseload. There would be a need for more judges to work within the courtroom, and jurors would have to be sworn into revote on the trial the second time. Another obstacle someone might face is that, offenders would be worried that there sentencing would be longer than what they were originally given.
The three strikes law was created in 1994 and is used only for heinous class a felons, for the crimes that are committed, these crimes include murder, rape, kidnapping and other first degree crimes. This law is widely used across the United States in almost 28 states and it was originally implemented in California. The current three strikes policy is used less today, even California changed their policy and it is not used for drug offenses. Racial disparities do exist with the three strikes policy where offenders of different race sentences vary based on the crime committed. With the proposal that I created it would give every offender no matter what race there are an equal sentences for the type of crime that was committed.
Conclusion
In summary, the three strikes policy was created in 1994, in California with Governor Wilson signing into Law AB 971 on March 7, 1994. With a six month period after the enactment of the law, it was clear that it had gained root in the state with more than 7,400 second- and third-strike cases filed within different courts in the state. Over the years the three strikes laws have faced serious controversy. The Three Strikes law did not take into account the relevant facts in the involvement of a crime or offence. By 2004, approximately 344 people are serving life sentences in California's prisons for minor crimes such as shoplifting while studies show that 650 individuals are serving life sentences for have small amounts of legal substances in their possession. My proposal for the three strikes policy is that all serious offenders which commit class a felonies that include crimes such as rape, murder and kidnapping, and other first degree offenses.
