State-Mandated Three-Strike Policies - Term Paper Example

? Man d "Three-Strike" Policies Task Man d "Three-Strike" Policies Three strike policies describe themandatory approaches for sentencing felons by state authorities that regulate repeat offences. However, three strikes is not a suitable alternative to punishing capital offences, but countries have chosen to use it as a means of delivering justice. Three strikes have resulted to unfairness in most cases when used by State authorities. The policy doubles offences, which is not fair according to the principles of justice. This paper highlights the challenges that have emerged in the society based on three strikes policies. Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 Three strikes policies 4 Objectives 5 Injustice in three strikes policies 5 Fairness of the policies 8 Recommendations 9 Conclusion 9 References 10 Three strikes policies Effective policies ensure fairness in the society; thus, the state should devise policies that address needs in a given place. The US introduced three strike laws as a punitive measure for criminal offenders. The laws dictated that a person convicted more that two times is sentenced to life on the third offense (Walsh, 2007). The sentence doubles in some instances denying convicts a chance to be on probation. A felon is sentenced for life regardless of the crime he/she has committed. However, the majority of the population deems “three strike policies” unfair because of various reasons. Similarly, I concur that the punishment is unfair since it denies a criminal a chance to appeal for any sentence committed for a third time. Moreover, it is the harshest policy of sentencing in the US system. According to Walsh (2007), several states have adopted three strike policies despite opposition from some members of the public. As such, the three strike policies should be used in cases where there is no alternative to the administration of law. This paper discusses three strike systems as unfair sentencing for criminal offenders. Statement of the problem The three strikes policies address issues of sentencing and the impact of law on the society. Failure to understand the challenges arising from the three strike policies make it difficult for persons to advocate for justifiable sentencing of felons. Clearly, three strike policies are not effective because they allow States to commit atrocities (Mackey & Levan, 2013). The public has criticized the introduction of the three strikes policy by the State. Authorities have been forced come up with legal measures that promote fairness in the society. A legal procedure should be more beneficial to authorities that use it instead of the law destabilizing the society (Mackey & Levan, 2013). Civil societies are opposed to the policies because they harm the society by being counterproductive to development. The focus of authorities in implementing the “three strike policies” weakens the justice systems since there is limited creativity by the legal authorities in coming with laws that contradict the stipulations of the three strike theories. Prisons in California have witnessed an increase in the number of convicts since the introduction of three strike policies in the early nineties. Objectives i. To understand the effects of the three strike policies; thus, providing an opportunity for devising the most effective legal policies for use by the authority. ii. Establishing measures that enhance fairness in the delivery of justice Injustice in three strikes policies It appears unethical when the state enforces the law upon the citizens (Mackey & Levan, 2013). It is morally expected that the public should decide on the jurisdiction to be used by the government. Prior to the enactment of three strike policies, authorities ignored the long-term impacts of the law since it compromises human dignity whenever the law is stipulated in a given region. There is little concern for the causes of crime in three strikes sentencing. Instead, the process focuses on punishing offenders using all means possible. The three strikes are similar to the ancient forms of justice although the process focuses on a modern approach. A person who has committed crime repeatedly is considered an outcast in the society. This means that authorities fail to consider that a significant proportion of the aggressive crimes committed in the society are not premeditated. There is an assumption that the offender was negligent while breaking the law (Walsh, 2007). Laws should focus on correcting criminal situation instead of punishing crime using a crime. This makes three strikes a shortcoming in the delivery of justice. There are instances that three strike laws have premeditated violence making the opponents of the policies attacked State authorities to express their anger (Walsh, 2007). A criminal who is to be sentenced for life is likely to react violently when committing an offence for the third time. State officers will find it difficult to arrest criminals who have already committed crime twice. Indeed, the felon can opt to act violently in whatever manner because human beings are known not to respond violently when caught in a precarious situation. According to Mackey & Levan (2013), the laws are unfair by creating a backlog to the justice system. The policies deny the public an opportunity to access justice. The courts are mandated to handle third time offences for a long period. It is not useful because a felon who has been subjected to the long court process is sentenced for life in the end. The trials are costly because the State has to prove without doubt that one is guilty. Prosecutors find it difficult in analyzing the details of the case that decides on sentencing for a repeated offence. Equally, the judges are denied the opportunity of mitigating cases of a capital offense. The judges rely on previous decisions that were used in the delivery of justice (Levan, 2012). Appealing cases sentenced by three strike policy results to confusion on the suitable approaches for promoting fairness in legal practices. According to Mackey & Levan (2012), a repeat offender can transform i, therefore, three strikes policies impede development in the society when a conclusion is made that a repeat offender cannot change his behavior. The livelihood of citizens who could assist the nation in various ways is wasted in prisons. Nations spend resources in managing the ever-increasing prison population. According to natural law theory, the recent increase in capital offence signifies that three strike policies fail to solve the crime in some instances. Specifically, they target repeat offenders neglecting that fact that the entire population should use a policy. Three strike policies create disparities in the delivery of justice. Some cases require less punishment regardless of the frequency of its commitment. For example, petty offences such as shoplifting should not be punished by life imprisonment whether it is committed for the first time or repeatedly. The defendants requesting for more trials interfere with quick delivery of justice (Siegel & Worrall, 2012). The judicial system is overburdened with repeat crime cases, which can be resolved at a local level. Three strike policies limit the discretion that judges and prosecutors have while administering justice. The sentences that have increased the number of offenses committed by a felony to three might be unfair. It is difficult to substantiate the crime to be punished using three strikes approach. Walsh (2007) asserts that offenses vary depending on the circumstances that the crime was committed. Moreover, people with criminal records will fear offending themselves when physically attacked meaning that the law will lead to the isolation of felons in the society. This neglects the fact that human beings are social creatures meant to interact with one another (Walsh, 2007). The procedure has failed to achieve its intended goal of ensuring the society is free from violent crime. The laws are incapacitating offenders instead of empowering them to behave morally upright. States that have introduced “three strikes” sentencing have not realized a decline in case of crimes. Instead, the policies advocated for in the three strikes system are burdening authorities. The three strike policies violate the constitution as evident in its ideas. The policies confuse authorities by comparing crimes and grouping different offences. The use of previous cases in judging a present crime ignores the establishing principles of legal institutions. It neglects the principles of realism theory, which states that the applicability of the law is paramount during its formulation (Walsh, 2007). Indeed, the introduction of three strikes policies led to a review of the legal system in many countries that embraced this form of sentencing. This later interfered with previous justice systems that advocated for sentencing basing on the offense committed. Crimes are resolved using various approaches, but according to three strikes policies crimes are only resolved using the legal systems. Moreover, it is not a suitable approach to delivering justice because the system creates misunderstanding between various authorities. As such, the judge can carry out procedures different from his beliefs. Siegel & Worrall (2012) indicate that fairness would have been probable if the policies focused on capital offences only. However, three strike policies have led to unfair punishment of petty offences. The laws are to blame for overcrowding in prisons since offenders have been sentenced for life by the State because the law states that their offence deserves life punishment. However, the crime committed did not warrant harsh punishment. Instead, such a person should visit a rehabilitation facility. Fairness of the policies Three strikes policies can be instrumental in the delivery of justice since the laws are effective when they sentence capital offenders (Siegel & Worrall, 2012). There are places that have benefited from the use of this policy in delivering justice. For instance, a decline in cases of homicide is evident in California since the introduction of three strikes policy. The law keeps offenders who are prone to repeat their mistakes off from the society. The policy has overshadowed inactive laws that were used earlier by several authorities in punishing criminal offenders since the state is responsible for determining the justice system to use (Siegel & Worrall, 2013). It has led to the development of elaborative jurisdiction procedures in several places. Furthermore, the provision for parole after is an opportunity for the offenders to appeal to a sentence. Recommendations i. It is necessary to consider different crimes while devising policies meaning that three strike policies should be only used for capital offenses proved beyond doubt. ii. Authorities should invest resources in strengthening the justice system in a given place. iii. Legal authorities should handle petty offences whether it is a repetition of crime. iv. Laws used by authorities should not limit the number of pleas that an offender is able to make. v. The values of different people should be recognized by sanctifying life. Therefore, the theory of legal positivism is applicable in devising policies instead of relying on the three strikes policy. Conclusion Three strike systems have brought about inconsistency in the delivery of justice during its application. Countries initially advocated for the policy in solving the increase in crime rate. However, the authorities realized later that three strike policies is an unfair form of justice since they created confusion in the public. I believe that three strike policies are inappropriate because people have been convicted for petty offences. The laws seem to be an impediment to delivering justice. However, there are cases when the three strike policies have been instrumental in reducing vicious crimes. It is advisable for authorities to consult prior to implementing a policy in solving crime meaning that the State should have absolute authority in deciding the legal policies to use in a country. References Mackey, D. A., & Levan, K. (2012). Crime prevention. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Siegel, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2012). Essentials of criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Walsh, J. E. (2007). Three strikes laws. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. Read More