The Main Argument in Favor of the Implementation of the Three Strikes Laws - Essay Example

Three Strikes Laws The main argument in favor of the implementation of the Three Strikes Laws is that they help reduce violence by keeping the criminals in prison longer as compared to the durations suggested by other sentencing schemes. Sometimes, offenders have to remain imprisoned throughout their life under the three strikes laws. The basic principle is that public safety increases as a result of incapacitation of people that have been proved to be a substantial threat to the society. The three strikes laws disperse the criticism raised against the system of criminal justice that suggests that offenders use prisons as ‘revolving doors’ (Grimes, n.d., p. 262). These laws do not leave the offenders with a chance to be released because of liberal sentences or plea bargains after spending short periods of time in the prison. Past research shows evidence both for and against the reduction of violence and crime in the society under the effect of the three strikes laws, so argument either in support of or against the effectiveness of three strikes laws cannot be derived from the literature. However, regardless of the results reported in the empirical research, it is an established fact that the number of law-violating people in the society reduces under the effect of the three strikes laws. Proponents of the three strikes laws also talk about their deterrent effect, saying that the three strikes laws serve as the greatest and the most effective deterrent in the way of offenders contemplating crimes repeatedly. Another advantage of the implementation of the three strikes laws is that offenders that get released from the prisons have personally witnessed other offenders who have received greater and longer punishments under the effect of these laws, so the offenders being released would feel discouraged to show law-violating behavior after their release. The three strikes laws are also implementable from a human rights’ perspective because they are liberal as it takes an offender to have three distinct convictions rather than just three different offenses in order to receive punishment according to the three strikes laws. It is not a rational argument that offenders get extensive punishments under the three strikes laws for petty crimes because when an offender gets sentenced under these laws, chances are high that he/she has been involved in many other crimes that have not even been reported or attracted attention of the law-implementing agents. Another point in favor of the three strikes laws is that they serve to reduce the discretion from prosecutors and judges. One of the arguments raised against the three strikes laws is that punishments are regressive and do not provide the offenders with any opportunity to rehabilitate behind the bars or change their behaviors for the better. The chances for parole for these offenders are so remote that they do not find motivation in benefiting from any rehabilitation service provided to them in the correctional organizations. The resulting continuation of misbehavior makes the prisoners a threat not only to the correctional staff but also to the fellow prisoners. Another negative aspect of the three strikes laws is the enormity of costs incurred in keeping the offenders imprisoned for longer periods of time. In order to accommodate the growing number of offenders under the effect of the three strikes laws, more prisons need to be built and additional correctional staff needs to be hired. Healthcare of the increasing and aging offender population further adds to the costs incurred in the three strikes laws. Three strikes laws cause imprisonment of minorities in larger numbers than the people who are racially a majority. This leads to racial disparities in the prison and opens the doors to racial discrimination. I am for the three strikes laws as I believe such laws are required to serve as a disincentive for the offenders to commit crimes repeatedly. The arguments against the three strikes laws lack substance and sound logic. The aspect of increased cost of imprisonment under the effect of the three strikes laws is blown out of proportion because fact is that “only 3 percent to 4 percent of most state budgets is spent on corrections, and several studies show that it’s much cheaper to lock up a common criminal than allow him to roam free” (Carlson, n.d., 115-116). Imprisoning the habitual offenders longer is thought to be expensive because the indirect costs of continued violence are not realized. The loss of life, property, or any other thing of all law-abiding citizens in the society that are attacked or offended by these habitual offenders released from the prisons sums up to bring about a much larger cost than what is incurred in keeping the offenders imprisoned for longer periods of time. Opponents of the three strikes laws believe that the appetite for conducting offense and violence reduces as an offender ages, so it is financially burdensome to keep them imprisoned for decades; “The twentysomethings with a seemingly insatiable appetite for violence become forty-, fifty- or sixtysomethings. Their propensity for violence goes down but the cost of maintaining them (in human as well as fiscal terms) goes up” (Simon, n.d., p. 118). This is a very optimistic view of the capabilities and tendencies of habitual offenders. Habitual offenders are imprisoned under the effect of the three strikes laws only because they repeatedly commit crimes and the crimes become graver and severer successively, thus justifying their extensive punishment. One measure that can be taken to address the concerns of the opponents of the three strikes laws is to introduce a reward system within the prisons for the offenders. While the three strikes laws should remain implemented as such, offenders within the prisons can be motivated to engage in constructive activities by linking their outputs with rewards. The rewards can be arranged meetings with their friends and family members in the prison, access to libraries and means of entertainment if they deliver the tasks assigned inside the prisons. This way, the prisoners can be motivated to adopt positive habits and also contribute to the society with their output. References: Carlson, J. (n.d.). “Three Strikes” Laws Prevent Crime. pp. 113-116. Grimes, J. N. (n.d.). Three-Strikes Laws. pp. 257-265. Simon, J. (n.d.). “Three Strikes” Laws Will Not Prevent Crime. pp. 117-120. Read More