- April 23, 2020
The Three strikes Laws
THREE STRIKE LAWS 4
TheThree strikes Laws
TheThree strikes Laws
Theonset of the 1990s marked the time when the United States (U.S.)enacted a law for the arrest of an individual who repeated anoffense. It adopted a name called “three strike laws” because itreferred to an offender who had undertaken three criminal cases.Besides, approximately half of the U.S. and the federal governmentendorsed the law with the view of eliminating the career criminalsfrom the cities and streets (Taibbi,2013).The essay, therefore, focuses on the impacts of the three strikelaws, whether or not the law is fair to the offenders, and itsrelevance on the minority criminals.
Impactsof the Three Strike Laws
Therehas been a little positive impact of the law in different parts ofthe U.S. as only a few offenders have been vindicated for goingagainst the law in three consecutive times. Precisely, Washingtonarrested 66 offenders, and Arkansas took 12 to custody, and Wisconsinhad only one case, but there were no criminals arrested due to thebreach of the three strike laws. However, I do believe that therewere negative impacts of law because it targeted the minority groupsin the States, made the prisons in places such as California crowdedwhile also acting as an avenue through which the State prosecutorscan easily abuse the rights of the offenders (Brookbanks& Ekins, 2010).
TheFairness of the Laws to the Offender
Thelaw is unfair to most offenders because a person who has done a crimethat attracts at most six months sentence may undergo charges formore than 25 years if the case is enacted under a felony. An obviousexample is the case of Andrade versus the State of CaliforniaAttorney General, which the U.S. Court of Appeal for the NinthCircuit overruled, arguing that it exhibited a grossdisproportionality.Leandro Andrade stole a videotape worthapproximately $154, and the TSAYO law provided that he get a sentenceof 50 years imprisonment since he had engaged in prior criminalactivities. The Ninth Circuit upheld the convictions to prove howunfair the three strike laws are to the defendants because it rarelyconsiders the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court (Taibbi,2013).
Whetherthe Laws Unfairly Target the Minority Offenders
Ithink that the law is very unfair to the African Americans as it hasled to the increase of the misappropriated penalties among the peopleof color as opposed to the whites. In 2013, the criminal system thatdepended on the three strike laws was biased to more than two-thirdsof the Black Americans, while the cases of the whites were barelyone-third (Taibbi,2013).The minority groups are also prone to little offenses which may betargeted by the judges in cases through the use of three strike laws
Thethree strike laws aimed at reducing the actions of dangerouscriminals who have made robbery a carrier in the streets and citiesof the U.S. Therefore, it attracted the endorsement of differentstates, especially California, as well as the federal government.However, the law has led to more negative impacts than the benefits,for example, racial vindication, unfairness to the offenders as wellas forming a ground that most state prosecutors abusively utilize. Itis thus necessary for the courts in the U.S. to take a lot of cautionbefore referring to the three strike laws as it is prone to grossmisappropriation.
Brookbanks,W., & Ekins, R. (2010). Case against the Three Strikes SentencingRegime, The. NZLRev.,42(2),689.
Taibbi,M. (2013). Cruel and unusual punishment: The shame of three strikeslaws. RollingStone, 6(2),83-102.