The police are not the only ones that use unethical practices against citizens. The police enforce the laws but it is important to take a close look at where these laws stem from and the motives of policy makers. Many conservatives want to keep criminals off the streets and believe that an affective way of accomplishing this objective is by first, implementing “get tough laws” such as the “three strikes” law and secondly, by getting rid of legal loopholes. Conservatives who believe in “lock‘em up” policies feel that locking up criminals longer can help prevent crime. Three different proposals of these policies are preventative detention, incapacitation, and mandatory sentencing. There is a misconception that judges are too lenient on convicted offenders and many of our policies discourage incarceration and focus too much on rehabilitation.
The “Three Strikes” law is one example of a “get tough” policy and is used as a preventative measure to keep criminals incarcerated to prevent further crime from happening. This policy was enacted after 12-year old, Polly Klass was forcibly taken from her home during a slumber party and killed by a repeated violent offender. Polly’s father Marc, learned her attacker was on parole with a history of violence with children. Marc Klass gathered public sympathy and helped enact the “Three Strikes” law which gives sentences of 25 years to life for serious repeat offenders. It is a noble cause to try and rid the streets of violent offenders and prevent such tragedies such as the case with Polly Klass, however the majority of those serving lengthy sentences are not violent offenders. Should a person be locked up for 25 years to life for stealing a pizza? That was the case with a 27-year old in Los Angeles. The youtube video shows the story of Isaac. Isaac was convicted of petty theft and because he was on his third strike was facing the possibility of life imprisonment. This video shows the effects that these laws can have. Isaac's family was also suffering from being in a fatherless environment. Unfortunatley there are many others out there with similiar cases. According to Walker (2001), many of these “get tough” policies have been proven ineffective and had no significant impact on crime rates. These long term sentences for third strike offenders are costly, unfair and have been shown to have no impact on crime rates. Punishments should be swift, certain and should fit accordingly with the crime.
Another misconception about reducing crime is that by closing legal loopholes serious offenders will not slip through the system and return to the streets. Conservatives believe loopholes such as the insanity defense and plea bargaining are ways that serious offenders can reduce their sentence or avoid it all together. Walker (2001) concludes that abolishing or limiting the insanity defense will not affect the crime rate. The insanity defense is rarely successful and the burden of proof of such claims switches to the defense.
Plea bargaining is another misconception of a loophole where criminals can escape severe punishment. Walker (2001) concludes that plea bargaining has no effect on serious crimes and that the system is actually fairly harsh with serious offenders. These legal loopholes are not a gateway for criminals to escape the criminal justice system because for most these loopholes do not exist. It is the very few, publicized, celebrated cases of legal loopholes that give many the misconception of how often this actually occurs.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990105,00.html
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Three Strikes and We're All Out!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Whats going on Stephen. This was an interesting video clip along with your post. The video with Isaac Ramirez just proves that the three strikes law is unjust and unfair in that state of California and all the other states. This individual turned his life around by appealing to the ninth circuit with this writ of hebeas. He stated himself that there are many other prisoners like him that are in the same situation as him. I strongly feel the courts should spend more time looking and reviewing cases like Isaac Ramirez case. Overall great post man, see you later.
Hey Omar, thanks for the comments. Yeah, I think it would be a good idea for criminal justice systems to punish people accordingly with the crime as well as their past history, but the "three strikes" law is way too extreme. Even though, Isaac is a repeat offender, to lock him away for life for petty theft is not only cruel and unusual but it's not really helping anyone.
What up Gyro, I totally agree with you on that these "get tough laws" like the "Three Strikes" law should be applied to violent repeat offenders that have show no sign of stopping their life of crime. The problem is that the law is spread across the board to all third strike offenders and there is no distinction if the third strike is serious or not because mostly all third strikers get 25 years to life. As with Isaac case he is one of the lucky few that have fought the system and won, which makes me wonder how many non-violent criminal are filling up the prison system under the Three Strike law for petty offences. Good blog topic and nice picture it looks oddly familiar.
hey jorge, likewire, nice picture. What can I say but great minds think alike. Yeah, when I listened to the story of Isaac I found it very strange that he was even eligible for a third strike. He stole a VCR, that isn't even a felony. I completley agree with you that there most certainly should be a clear distinction between those eligible for a third strike.
Cry me a river. Isaac Ramirez had three chances to shape up and couldn't do it. He already committed at least two violent or serious offenses and obviously was still committing crime. The point is to get him off the street before he commits another violent crime and someone ends up injured or dead. Him being locked up probably saved someone from harm. Besides he knew the law and chose, on his own, to break it.
Isaac Ramirez did not commit any violent offenses otherwise I would agree with you that he should be locked up for a lengthy sentence. Isaac Ramirez commited petty theft. Although it's not a victimless crime should society pay thousands of dollars locking up an offender who stole a $50 VCR??
As i was reading the post on sheadon1 i realized this person did not read the Published Opinion by The Ninth Circuit. Ramirez had never been to prison before. And he had served one sentence prior to his 3rd strike commitment. This was my argument before the Courts, And was affirmed.. thank you for your support those of you who see the In Justice of California Three Strikes Law there are many others in prison who deserve the same Justice. We will not stop educating the Public on this issue. Isaac Ramirez Former Striker
Post a Comment