THREE-STRIKE LAWS

Three-Strike Laws

Three-Strike Laws

Introduction

Laws of three errors (Three Strikes Laws, also known as the "three laws of crimes") - legislation, adopted at the level of states in the United States , under which courts should impose the state of those who committed three serious offenses , to long-term imprisonment . Such jurisprudence conviction of offenders - repeat offenders has become very popular in the U.S. since the end of XX century. In American law, these laws are also known as English. The name originates from the laws of the rules of the game in baseball where the batter can miss two shots before they retire from the game, skipping the third strike (Meese, 2008).

Thesis statement

The paper discuses about the three-strike law and it define whether the three-strike laws constitutional.

History

The practice of condemning criminals, repeat offenders for longer than that for first time offenders, prison terms are not new. For example, in New York state law is acting like the end of the XIX century. However, its use is not mandatory, the judge in each case solved - to apply the law or not, and could determine the term of imprisonment of criminals on their own, in a fairly wide range.

Similar legislation was soon accepted in many other states, but none are as stringent in California. By 2004, in 26 states, as well as at the federal level, laws were passed to implement the concept of "three strikes", namely the third offense carries a life sentence without the right to early release for a long time, or more popular option 25-year prison sentence (Karpelowitz, 2008).

Application

Terms of the law are different in each state. In some states it applies only if all three crimes were related to violence and the offender has already served his prison term, while in others, particularly in California, the offender gets a long prison term if the previous two crimes were violent or merely "serious."

Are Three-Strike Laws Constitutional?

Most experts, however, say that California's and other states' three-strikes laws are constitutional. It is appropriate to base the severity of punishment on a person's history, they contend. An offender whose former punishment did not deter him or her from committing another crime can, and perhaps should, be given an increased penalty in light of that history, they say.

A recent Supreme Court ruling, in Custis v. U.S., seems to have affirmed the constitutionality of laws that automatically increase penalties for repeat offenders, such as three-strike measures. In May 1994, the Supreme Court upheld the federal Armed Career Criminal Act, which mandates a 15-year sentence for anyone convicted of owning or transporting a gun who is deemed a career criminal. The federal government considers a person to be a career criminal when he or she has at least three prior criminal convictions (Butterfield, 2010).

The court ruled, 6 to 3, that a person convicted under the act could not challenge the earlier convictions that placed him or her in the "career criminal" ...