3Strikes-law/Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines
The3 strikes law/mandatory sentencing guidelines is basically aimed atpreventing the known or possibly vehement offenders and debilitatingsentenced criminals through long-term detention. This law lessensjudicial preference by authorizing severe prison rulings for third,or in some cases, first and second law-breaking criminals. This paperwill look at the mandatory sentencing guidelines in detail, theopinions of those for and against it, and lastly, my position on thetopic.
Thefirst state to adopt this policy was Washington, and that was in1993. Two years later, nine more states implemented it. The law wasenacted when public concerns about the crime were rampant, althoughthe rates were falling [CITATION Joh13 p 35 l 1033 ].The political push for this bill was due to people’s viewpoint thatwrongdoers were getting shorter verdicts than before and prisons hadgyrating doors. Custody rates were on the rise and detainees wereserving longer terms. These guidelines were sold to the public as auseful tool for mitigating and possibly getting rid of crime and theonly way of keeping recurring criminals out of the streets. Themajority of countries since the inception of this policy already hadlaws advocating for long-term imprisonment for ferocious crimes.These new rules under the mandatory sentencing were anticipated totarget violent offenders, but were inscribed with discrepancies inpenalizing and bail suitability, the type of crimes that meet therequirements as an attack, the kind of offence that led to thejudgment, the number of assaults required to invoke a compulsoryverdict and the degree of carefulness allowed to entreat andimplement the law [ CITATION Chr16 l 1033 ].
Thecrime, evaluation and mandatory sentencing have focused on two broadtypes of crimes that are commonly subjected to the 3 strikes law /those committed with handguns and those related to drugs [CITATION Fam12 p 16 l 1033 ].This policy mainlyaffects the young offenders since they are confined for longsentences and eventually, outgrow their crimes. The issues have beenaddressed by various decision makers in the past, and the need for anew policy that was clear and understandable was determined [CITATION Hon14 p 24 l 1033 ].Any criminal convicted of a third serious misdemeanor was to bedetained for life without release on bail. The only way to freedomwas if the offender could persuade the governor to grant forgiveness.This proposal recommended that this should not occur until theoffender is above 60-years and no longer an issue of concern to thepublic. Sex offenders were to be apprehended with extremeinspection, and this policy was then adopted by crime victims andpolice (Tatum Pritchard).
Supportersof the three strike law argue that there are various benefitsassociated with taking it. One, justice would be provided for crimefatalities by eliminating permanently brutal and occupation criminalsfrom the streets. This reduces the potentiality to safeguard thecriminal instead of the victim hence, they cannot escape. This lawensures justice is served even though the system normally fails. Secondly, crimes would be avoided since the culprits would only getthree chances. Crooks escape with many crimes, and it may bedifficult for the police to establish them, or get enough proof toput them on trial. This would enable the criminals to slip away withthe assistance from the lawyers. As such, this policy applies to aperpetrator who has indulged in more than three crimes. Someoffenders would leave their country, change their ways, or withdraw[ CITATION Aco15 l 1033 ].The law gives aneffective warning after the second conviction. The fact that thispolicy maintains that an offender would go to prison for over 25years, it discourages people from engaging in serious crimes such asrobbery and rape or, the less serious ones like theft because it isan open and transparent law known even to the delinquent. The lawalso shows the usual committers of crime are insignificant cases,like the media. The broadcasters do not replicate the actuality ofthe reprise wrongdoer to think twice about committing crimes since itreduces the problem of records. The law ensures that sentences becomemore severe and longer, thus making preventing offenders fromengaging in criminal acts hence reducing crime rates [CITATION DrW15 p 10 l 1033 ].
Thoseopposing this law give reasons for their opinion against it as well.These include one, which the law rescinds the suppleness of thejudge advocate and the courts and is due to the dogma fits alljudgment systems, but each law breaker has a different case toanswer. Each crime should be addressed differently, and thatflexibility is destroyed by the mandatory sentencing. Secondly, itis unfair in particular situations [ CITATION Kay14 l 1033 ].Some petty issues like theft are not fit for 25 years imprisonment,yet other people might have been at the wrong location at a wrongtime. The law also increases more criminals to an already congestedand costly prison structure. It is expensive to maintain prisonersand the law leads to more convicts being confined. It is an abuse ofthe 8thAdjustment of the Constitution. This amendment restricts the use ofundeserved and harsh punishments by the government. Therefore, if acase infringes this, the lawsuits are illegal and ought to beupended. The offenders often request bargain in their first twosentences. This has become a vast selection of prosecutors and theexpensiveness of trials force the state to use it. The apprehensionof persons with more than one conviction assures the time and expenseof a hearing. A convict who is probably arrested for the third timewill definitely drive for a hearing. This is regardless of theevidence against him/her thus accumulating more expenditures to thecourt system [ CITATION Joe12 l 1033 ].
Theyoung people are mostly engaged in criminal activities due to variousreasons. One leading cause of crime is poverty. This is due to issuessuch as unemployment, low pay in cases of employment among otherfactors. However, with the rise in criminal acts, detaining anoffender for 25 years is totally insensible. Some violations like thetheft of small items are rather petty and absolutely undeserving ofsuch sentences. These years would prove more appropriate for heinouscrimes such as sexual assault and murder. There are more cons to thislaw than the pros, and therefore, instead of implementing it,alternative endorsements should be discussed and adopted. An exampleof such ratifications includes the pardoning of petty offenders, thetryout of others and a full jail term of others.
Acosta, Jennise. Mandatory sentencing guidelines disparately affect female offenders. 20 April 2015. https://law.fiu.edu/mandatory-sentencing-guidelines/. 27 March 2017.
Tatum Pritchard et al. "Three Strikes The Wrong Way to Justice." Institute for Race and Justice (2012): 26. http://www.cjpc.org/2012/3-Strikes-Report.pdf.
Families Against Mandatory Minimums. "Federal Mandatory Minimums." Chart-All-Fed (2012): 16. http://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chart-All-Fed-MMs-NW.pdf.
Kayla Marie Martensen, Brandi Nichole. The Encyclopedia Of CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE. 22 January 2014. 9781118517383.wbeccj530/abstract. 27 March 2017.
Warren Brookbanks. "Three Strikes-Five Years On." Law Society (2015): 10. https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/practice-resources/commentary/legislation-and-regulations/Three-Strikes-Five-Years-On.pdf.
Messerli, Joe. "Is the three-strikes law, which provides mandatory 25-to-life sentences for a third felony conviction, a good idea? ." BalancedPolitics.org (2012). https://www.balancedpolitics.org/three_strikes.htm.
Saris, Hon. Patti B. "A GENERATIONAL SHIFT FOR FEDERAL DRUG SENTENCES*." U.S. Sentencing Common Analysis Of Drug Trafficking Offenders and Guidelines (2014): 24. http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/news/speeches-and-articles/article_saris_112014.PDF.
Sutton, John R. "Symbol and Substance: Effects of California’s." Law and Society Review (2013): 35. http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/sutton/Design/Assets/Sutton%20L&SR%2013.pdf.
Tatum Pritchard., et al. "Three Strikes The Wrong way to Justice." Institute For Race and Justice (2012): 26. http://www.cjpc.org/2012/3-Strikes-Report.pdf.
Zoukis, Christopher. The Huffington Post. 31 July 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-zoukis/threestrikes-laws-strikes_b_7913274.html. 27 March 2017.