Three Strike Laws - Coursework Example

Whether Three-Strike law deters Crime? Whether Three-Strike law deters Crime? College Three-Strike laws have been enacted by many states in U.S.A thereby stipulating a long-term prison (25-year) imprisonment for the offenders who have committed a third time offense. Supporters argue that a small cluster of high-rate crime offenders engages in the grave crime, and such laws could incapacitate such habitual offenders resulting in the reduction of crime rates. Critics argue that three-strike laws will not minimize crimes, and such laws will divert scarce state’s funds to prison administration instead of meeting education and social welfare schemes. This research essay will analyse in detail whether the three-strike law really minimize crimes in U.S.A in detail. Introduction As per King and Mauer (2001), three-strike laws are sentencing laws that inflict exceptionally longer imprisonments for frequent offenders, particularly after their two earlier felonies. Under an incapacitative justification, three –strike laws are championed since it is debated that repeat lawbreakers are more probable to unleash future felonies and hence, they should be given longer period sentence. Three-strike laws or habitual offender laws are in existence as of date almost in more than half of the all states in U.S but only a selected state like California , have regulations that impinge on a large number of frequent offenders .(Pollock 2011,p.322). This research essay will make a research into whether three-strike laws have really minimized felonies and crimes in U.S.A and whether longer punishment for habitual offenders has yielded any reduction crime rates in U.S.A in an in-depth manner. “What is Three-Strike Law”? The main objective of three-strike law is to minimize the crime rates by locking up regular and career criminals. When if one is convicted for a second term for a felony , his imprisonment would be doubled under the 1994 California three-strike law and in case of a third felony sentence, there would be a mandatory conviction of twenty-five years to life. Over the years, only California State in U.S.A is having such harsh law for habitual offenders. The supporters of three-strike law like Bill Jones cited that there was a dramatic fall in the crime rate immediately after the introduction of three-strike laws during the 1990s. (“Babbie, 2012, p376”). According to opponents, California three-strike law is a bad policy both under ethical and practical reasons. Critics argue that California’s three-strike laws imprison those offenders who already crossed their crime-prone age and also punish non-violent criminals by awarding longer sentences. As per Zimming, Hawkins & Kamin (2001), three-strike laws are taking away major resources of a state which is otherwise available to schooling, health-care or other social needs. Further, longer sentence is alleged that it is unjustly inconsistent with the minor type of felony committed. Some offenders who have committed some minor or petty offences are punished with 25 years to rest of their lives in prison. As per Cole (1999), three-strike laws tend to punish African Americans disproportionately than compared to white offenders. (Pollock, 2011, p.322). As per Morris (1951), if an offender commits a third felony, then, he is likely to be imposed life sentence under Special habitual offenders’ laws in UK and also in USA. In USA, despite the fact, three-time loser laws were on the statute books in the majority states, they were not frequently employed till 1990. The first ever statute Three Strikes law was passed by the Washington State in the year 1993 as an alternate for the habitual –felony laws, and it is aimed to cover only , certain , grave felonies , with a life sentence on the third conviction. California version of three strike laws was much harsher than the other States’ three strike laws. The California law is unique as it stipulates as there is a significant increase in sentence for the second felony, and it did not requiring any violence for imposing a 25-year to life sentence on third strike. Even a residential burglary may qualify for a life conviction under three-strike laws. (Franklin et al, 2011, p.5). In “Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S 63 [2003]” and in “Ewing v. California , 538 U.S 11 [2003] “, it was held by US Supreme court that three-strike laws enacted by California was not repulsively uneven and remitted back to the officials of the state in fixing punishment. (Pollock, 2011, p.322). A paroled drug dealer who killed one Kimberly Reynolds, an 18-year student in 1994 paved the way for enactment of three-strike law in California. For three reasons, three-strike laws can be regarded as the most unpleasant law as third or trigger can by any type of felony, not inevitably for a heinous crime, the first two offences may be sentenced for any grave felony though not inevitably a serious crime and an imprisonment of 25 years to life must be evaluated on each time, with multiple counts served in a row. Under three-strike laws, until the whole mandatory sentence is served, parole may be difficult to obtain. In “Lockyer v. Andrade” case, the crimes committed by Andrade to attract three-strike laws were minor in nature and crime was not violent in nature. The 9th Court of Appeals was of the opinion that three-strike laws were unconstitutional as they propose imprisonment, which is not proportionate to the offenses committed and hence, it infringed the Eighth Amendment. When appealed to Supreme Court of U.S.A, it reversed the verdict of 9th Court viewing that under the customary law, the imprisonment was not disgustingly inconsistent as to infringe the 8th Amendment. Thus, Supreme Court consented the two terms of 25 years to Andrade, which mean that Andrade could not obtain parole till 2046! Thus, Andrade case offers no obvious solution to the “gross disproportionality “issue, particularly for punishment under “three-strike” statues. Nonetheless, the last paragraph in the majority of Andrade case implies that the way perused by US Supreme Court will take that issue when it is presented again. It is observed that for only extreme cases, the gross disproportionality norm reserves a constitutional infringement. (Gardner & Anderson, 2010, p.213). As per King and Mauer (2001), about 58% of the offenders who were booked under the three-strike law were for minor or non-violent offenses. As per the Justice Policy Institute, three-strike laws in California had unreasonably impacted people who were booked for non-violent offenses. One another disturbing feature of the three-strike law is that it is being abused particularly on African Americans. As per a study, African –American constitute just 6.5% percentage in California’s population whereas about 36% African-Americans were booked under the above law in California. Likewise, Latinos, who are minority population in California but comprised higher percentage of detention under three-strike laws as compared to their White offenders,. As per King & Mauer (2001), African-American comprises just 4% of the population in Washington’s state whereas about 37% offenders under three-strike laws were African-Americans. As per Murphy (2009), the Washington state is now reviewing its sentencing policy, particularly under three-strike laws and non-violent offenders who were punished under the above law now being released by the state officials. As per Kovandzic, Sloan & Vieraitis (2004), three-strike laws not only unsuccessful to minimize the happenings of grave crimes but resulted in the increasing of the same. A public referendum conducted in California in 2004 revealed that majority of Californians wanted to maintain the status quo of three-strike laws without any alteration or modification and desired to keep the law as it was originally enacted. (Blackburn et al, 2013, p.58). Federal government and all States in U.S.A employ sentence enhancement laws that impose additional criminal penalties. Under the following scenarios, enhanced sentences are being awarded. Where the victim is a handicapped or elderly person and in cases of hate crime. If the offender is a routine criminal. While committing the crime, a grave and dangerous weapon is employed. While carrying-out the crime, a bullet-proof garment is used. If the offender is under a mask thereby concealing his identity. To safeguard the interest of police officials, enhancement of imprisonment is being awarded from a misdemeanor penalty to a felony penalty if it is done against: Any harm inflicted upon a fire-fighting officer or law enforcement official while carrying out his duty Any harm is made to a juror or a witness To any government officer or public official A prison official, guard, a visitor to the prison, and harm to another prisoner (Gardner & Anderson, 2010, p.213). In “US V Gonzales, 1997 WL 525410 (C.A 5 Tex)” where during a drug transaction, the defendant carried a machine gun and for this, a 30-year extra imprisonment was imposed under the federal enhancement statute which was viewed as not infringing the 8th Amendment since machine guns are happened to be linked with drug trafficking and violence, which offer serious peril to the general public. Albeit ruling in Locker v. Andrade, State courts in U.S.A may reverse a sentence under the state constitutional stipulations. Article 1, section 17 of the California state constitution stipulates harsh, unusual and cruel punishment for habitual offenders. For example, in “People v. Carmony 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 365 (2005)” , the court imposed a 25-to-life sentence to Carmony as he failed to register as a sex offender within 5 days of a defendant’s birthday under California’s three-strike law as such action infringed the state’s constitution. (Gardner & Anderson, 2010, p.214). It is to be noted that the Eighth Amendment bars excessive fines, bail conditions, and unusual and cruel sentences. Likewise, the Sixth Amendment demands that accurate findings should be made for increasing a sentence which must be made by a jury. (Gardner & Anderson, 2010, p.214). Some critics argue that there is no direct link between three-strike laws and crime rates as crime rates have been declining radically in all the states, including those states where there are “three-strike” laws. They also cite in some California’s counties, which tend to ignore the three-strike law, there was a steep fall in crime rates. As per a study carried out by Greenwood and Rand in 2004, the three-strike law would likely to cost criminal-justice system of California about $5.5 billion more per annum particularly the maintenance cost of prison in California as habitual offenders were given long term sentence. Greenwood, Rydell and Model (1996) termed the three-strike law is an inefficient style of prevention of crime. They also forecasted that a budget of million dollars to three-strike laws would stop about 60 crimes whereas if the same amount is spent on educational expenses of high-school students would likely to stop about 258 crimes. Further, the bad impact of three-strike law falls on those criminals who are in their fag end of their criminal careers due to their attaining old age. (“Babbie, 2012, p.376”). In an undivided verdict, the Supreme Court of California made strong strictures against three-strike law and observed in The People v Jesus Romero case, that when choice to impeach has been made, the process which paves to imprisonment or release is basically judicial in character. Thus, the judicial authority should be autonomous and a judge should never be needed to pay for exercising his authority. In this case, Romero was convicted for possessing cocaine and in the trial, he pleaded not guilty of any possession of cocaine. Nonetheless, in the latter hearing, the court pointed out its readiness not to take into account his earlier felony sentences, and attempted theft, if he could tack back his earlier plea to guilty. However, the same was opposed by the prosecutor arguing that the court had no authority to ignore his previous felony sentences particularly in three-strike cases unless the request for the same has been made from the prosecutor side. Nonetheless, the court ignored the prosecutor’s objection and awarded a sentence of six years to Romero instead of the compulsory 25- year sentence under three-strike law. On appeal, the Court of Appeals viewed that the trial judge had no power to lessen the mandatory sentence. However, later, the California State high court reversed the verdict of the Court of Appeals by viewing that the remission of a sentence is a judicial liability and in the absence of any oblique reference in the laws on the subject did not eradicate a judge’s authority, and the court was of the opinion that any effort to stop the judicial interest would be unlawful. (Hawkins et al, 2003, p.62). Conclusion If we analyze whether three-strike laws are to be kept in alive or to be dismantled, there are mixed views over the same. No doubt, three-strike laws made the US prisons overcrowded which resulted more concerns for federal, state, prison administration and criminal-justice agencies. Critics are of the opinion that hidden costs associated with three-strike laws will finally to be borne by the tax -paying public and prison administration overheads has encroached the spending on schooling , health-care, and social welfare activities. (Blackburn et al, 2013, p.58). Do the three-strike laws deter the crime rates? The answer is mixed one. Now, three-strike laws have been introduced in 26 states of USA. As per research study carried on by National Bureau of Economic Research, three-strike laws may discourage offenders to carry-out petty offences, it does not deter them to engage in grave violent crimes. As per Radha Iyengar’s above research study, under three-strike laws, felons may engage in grave offences in their first two offences as they may get only lesser punishment. Applying the data collected from the criminal convictions during 1990 and 1999 in California State, Iyengar’s study found that three-strike laws have a direct impact on the probability of engaging in an offence immediately after release from incarceration in the consequent two years immediately after an earlier offense. Her study found that three-strike laws minimised recidivism by fourteen percent, and the crime was reduced to twenty-eight percent for second-time offenders as the next crime would entitle them to an incarceration of twenty-five -year prison term.(Fisman, 2008). As per Robert Nash Parker (2012) , three-strike laws has not minimized crime rates but has ended state’s financial disaster as states have to spend around $19 billion to $23 billion per annum to meet the prison overheads which would be otherwise available to state’s social welfare schemes. For instance, the state’s funding on higher education in 1985 was 11% whereas its spending on prison funding was just 4%. However, in 2010, the prison spending was at 10% whereas its spending on school higher education was at just 6%. The above data demonstrates that state’s prison spending overtakes the spending on higher education, mainly due to three-strike laws. It is emphasized that if a state spends more on higher education that would help to deter crime rates as good education will make the citizens law-abiding citizens’ thereby substantial reduction in the crime rates. Thus, instead of harsh punishment or long-term punishment, states in U.S should concentrate to nurture more law abiding citizens by spending less on prison overheads and by spending more on college education, health-care and other social needs. According to Parker, there has been a substantial decrease in crime nationwide not due to harsher sentencing policies but due to poignant drop in alcohol consumption. (Miller, 2012). As per King and Mauer (2001), about 58% of the offenders who were booked under the three-strike law were for minor or non-violent offenses. This corroborates that three-strike law is extremely harsh in nature and there should be safeguard provision that three-strike law cannot be applied if third strike involves only a minor or petty offense as what is being carried over by the Washington State. References Blackburn AG, Pollock JM & Fowler, SK. (2013). Prisons Today and Tomorrow. New York: Jones & Bartlett. Earl R Babbie, (2012) The Practice of Social Research. New York: Cengage Learning. Fisman, R. (2008). What if three-strikes laws make criminal less likely to repeat offenders? Retrieved March 13,2013 from http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2008/03/going_down_swinging.html Franklin, B E, Simon Z W G & Hawkins G, (2001) Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and You are out in California, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gardner, TJ & Anderson. (2010). Criminal Law. New York: Cengage Learning. Hawkins DF, Myers S & Stone, R N. (2003). Crime Control and Social Justice. New York: Greenwood Publishing Group Miller, B. (28 February 2012). Three-strike law fails to deter crime. Retrieved March 13,2013 from http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/3557 Pollock, JM (2011) Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (New York: Cengage Learning) Read More