State-Mandated Three-Strike Policies - Term Paper Example

Download file to see previous pages... 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 ...Download file to see next pagesRead More