three strikes

"Three Strikes" Sentences: Expand It, Preserve It as is, or Abolish It
Billy Eugene Yeldell
DeVry University: CRMJ-300
May 16, 2014

"Three Strikes" Sentences: Expand It, Preserve It as is, or Abolish It
Within picking the topic of "Three Strikes" sentencing and weather to expand it, preserve it as is, or abolish it. This paper will discuss each of these option and which of these options seem to be the best for our county and its people within the criminal justice system. As well as discuss why it is felt that this is an important criminal justice issue to address while giving a brief description of the issue.
"Three Strikes" Sentencing
The application of the three strikes law while it is codified in twenty-six states its application is different among each of the states that recognize it within their criminal justice system. The "Three Strikes" sentencing laws are “sentencing laws that mandate a prison sentence of twenty-five years to life for violent offenders who have been convicted of three or more offenses.” (Laws.com, 2013) In 1974 Texas was the first state to enact the "Three Strikes" sentencing that was call in Texas the Texas Habitual Offender Statute. Texas stature states "a defendant convicted of a felony is subject to a sentence of two to twenty years if (one) he has two prior felony convictions, and (two) the conviction for the first prior offense became final before commission of the second." (Laws.com, 2013) This is not the case in all twenty –six state as there are a few that state all crimes have to be felonies while other require other things in order to seek the sentencing enhancement.
Option: Expand It, Preserve It As Is, Or Abolish It Within many states rationale was that with enacting a sentence enhancement to enable to limit additional crime by removing the habitual offender from general population for an extended amount of time. I is also it the rationale that the increase in the amount of incarceration will limit the number of offenders what are going to reoffend. In most of the controversy to this has been due to roughly half or the 3rd strikers “are individuals who received life sentences for non-violent or non-serious crimes.” (Laws.com, 2014) This being said, I feel that there is a need for reform. While it is a good rationale to address violent\serious crimes with this type of rationale but with cases like (LOCKYER v. ANDRADE) where the offender Andrade stole ten videotapes from two different K-Mart stores. Within his sentencing he was giving a concurrent sentence meaning he had to complete the first 25 years to life sentence before start the next 25 to life sentence, that was under the under 3 Strikes. Due to this It is felt that while the “Three Strikes” are establish are helping on limiting the habitual offender from general population the laws establish of the “Three Strikes” sentencing should be limited to only violent or serious crimes old.
Why "Three Strikes" Sentencing Needs to be addressed
This this to be addressed because it is believed that it is being over used and is not staying within 8th Amendment that states that sentencing cannot be cruel and unusual punishment. A discussed above some that stole from K-Mart and few movie is not should not be within same sentencing guidelines as someone the killed, or raped, or bombed a building with people in it that is believed to be cruel and unusual punishment.
In conclusion in picking the topic of "Three Strikes" sentencing and weather to expand it, preserve it as is, or abolish it. It was found that expand it and establishing new guideline that limit it to only being used within violent or serious crimes. As it discussed the topic it was clear to what was the best option for the people within the criminal justice system.

References

References: