Three Strikes Law And Get Tough Approaches Essay Sample

Introduction

Three strikes laws are among the punishments for the crimes within the state laws. The punishment is more severe and which is usually the sentence for the lifetime. This sentence for a lifetime is given to the criminal when he is caught the third time committing a felony. It is requisite that the felony which is committed the third time should be similar to the previous two felonies which are committed by that criminal. This law was devised in order to avert the crime rates in a country or the state. In 1994, the law of the three strikes was formulated in US under the government of the Bill Clinton. A year later, the law was practically implemented in the states and, in particular, the California followed this law more strictly than any other state. A present, 28 states in total are involved in following the three strikes law. On the contrary, the year of 2000 remarks the reform of the law which included that the lifetime of 25 years to life sentence should be ordered to the criminals who are indulged in the violent felony the third time. Despite this reformed law, California State still imposes serious punishments and for certain crimes which is non-violent, the California law still sentences the lifetime punishment. The main objective of the law was to avert the repetitive occurring crimes within the state. However, the lifetime sentence becomes a harsh punishment for the criminals because the intensity of the crimes does not meet the extent for a person to be sentenced to the lifetime.

Counter Argument

Yes, the three strikes law and other get-tough approaches really work because the criminals who have made the crimes as their career are not offended through the lighter punishment. Consequently, if they are sentenced to the lifetime punishment for committing the dame nature of crime third time, then the criminals might refrain from the crimes due to the fear of the punishment. In this way, the criminal activities of the society can be controlled. Moreover, there are many criminals who committed the crime for the third time and faced the punishment according to the three strikes law and get tough approaches. Subsequently, the other criminals seek lesson from them and the crime rate in the state gets declined.
Furthermore, this law provides an only left option to the criminal who has been caught for a crime twice. This option is to commence a new life because the third time he is caught, he will have to face the severe punishment according to the law. In this way, the criminals are converted to lead a crime-free life. Ultimately, this law helps in eradicating the criminals without the death penalty.
In addition to this, the state which follows these strict laws grants the contentment to the public and nation since, the law offenders will be minimized. Also, the crime control officers and authorities can work with focus as they will have to come across with fewer criminals and if encountered, they can deal with the law offenders strictly under these laws.
The get tough and the three strikes laws evidently have been involved in the reduction of the crime rate. Since, the incorporation of this law in 1994, the outcome of these approaches are similar to the expected ones. Within the time span from the 2005 to 2010, the violent crime was decreased to the percentage of 17.6 while the crimes related to the homicides alleviated to 30.9 percent (Lieberstein, 2012). These approaches are same for all of the criminals therefore, the judges and prosecutors cannot discrete the criminals on any account and the punishment will be due for any criminal who is caught for third strike of the crime. These approaches can make the society crime free because the criminals will be reluctant to commit crimes.

My Argument

No, the three strikes law and other get-tough approaches do not actually work in reducing the crime and are not efficiently effective because the violent crimes are averted through these approaches. The reason behind this is that most of the violent crimes are committed under the effect of anger, alcohol, or passion. Therefore, the fear of the punishment of the three strikes and get tough laws cannot make the criminal refrain from the criminal activities. On the other hand, the law offenders continue to commit crimes frequently since, they assume of not being caught which is true to some extent as out of several cases, only a few criminals get arrested.
In addition to these, the severe punishment and these laws can lead to the more violent activities and elevation in crimes because the criminal who will be sentenced to lifetime would adapt the measures to escape the punishment. Consequently, in order to escape, he would commit more crimes such as killing the witness, etc. the three strikes laws and get tough approaches will increase the number of cases in the courts. These laws made the police arrest the persons who are indulged in the criminal activities which are not severe and are not to the extreme extent. Conversely, the court gets blocked with the cases which are against the lighter criminal activities. Ultimately, this affects the court system and the cases which are severe in nature keeps on pending. Hence, the court system is hampered in this way (Anonymous, 2014).
One of the major objections in the regard of the laws is the elevation in the amount and cost of the expenditure which is spent on the prisoners. The arrested individuals under the law of the three strikes will be more in number. Thus, the prisoner population will increase which in turn will increase the expenditure. Moreover, these prisoners will have the punishment for the lifetime. Consequently, the expenditure will cost for never ending time period until the prisoner dies a natural death (Issue, 2014).
These approaches enhance the racism since; the minorities who are offender of the laws and commit the lighter crimes will be readily arrested as compared to the majority. Subsequently, the equality is not maintained in the implementation of these approaches, and the minor groups will be more affected. The more intense argument against these approaches is the fact that the criminal does not deserve the harsh punishment for the lighter crime. Hence, he is punished strictly for crimes which hare minute while the committers of the intensified crimes remain free in the society (Taibbi, 2013).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is observed that the three strikes law and other approaches cannot bring the crime rates down for a society due to various reasons. In fact, they can be the reason for the elevation of more violence. Therefore, the laws should not be practiced in the society.

Work Cited

Anonymous. An American Civil Liberties Union BRIEFER. Lectlaw.com (2014). Retrieved from http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cri01.htm on 2nd April 2015.
Issue. Three Strikes Law Pros and Cons. APECSEC.org (2014). Retrieved from http://apecsec.org/three-strikes-law-pros-and-cons/ on 2nd April 2015.
Lieberstein. G. The three-strikes law is working as intended: “No” on Proposition 36. Napa Valley Register (2012). Retrieved from http://napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/mailbag/the-three-strikes-law-is-working-as-intended-no-on/article_10c02f76-0e9c-11e2-baa8-0019bb2963f4.html on 2nd April 2015.
Taibbi. M. Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Shame of Three Strikes Laws. Rolling Stone (2013). Retrieved from http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-20130327?page=5 on 2nd April 2015.