Academic Sources Choumana Augustin Fiuccj 4497 Joelle Lee Si

Academic Sourceschoumana Augustinfiuccj4497joelle Lee Silcox Phd11

Identify the actual assignment question/prompt and clean it: remove any rubric, grading criteria, point allocations, meta-instructions to the student or writer, due dates, and any lines that are just telling someone how to complete or submit the assignment. Also remove obviously repetitive or duplicated lines or sentences so that the cleaned instructions are concise and non-redundant. Only keep the core assignment question and any truly essential context.

The remaining cleaned text is the assignment instructions. Use exactly this cleaned text as the basis for the paper.

Let CLEANED be the final cleaned instructions string. Define TITLE as exactly the first 60 characters of CLEANED (including whitespace and punctuation), counting from character 1 to character 60 with no trimming, no rewording, no capitalization changes, and no additions or deletions. Do NOT paraphrase or rewrite these first 60 characters; copy them verbatim.

Paper For Above instruction

The article explores the evolution, goals, social impact, and reform considerations of California's Three-Strikes Law, emphasizing its unintended consequences—such as mass incarceration and racial disparities—and evaluates recent reform efforts and their effectiveness.

In my academic paper, I will critically analyze California's Three-Strikes Law, which was enacted with the primary objective of reducing repeat offenses and enhancing public safety through stringent sentencing policies. Initially, this law aimed to serve as a deterrent against recidivism by imposing severe penalties on individuals convicted of multiple serious crimes. However, over the years, empirical evidence and social observations have indicated that the law has contributed to significant issues such as prison overcrowding, disproportionate impacts on minority populations, and increasing costs for the criminal justice system. My paper will examine these social consequences, leveraging the identified scholarly sources to explore whether the law's punitive focus aligns with principles of justice and fairness.

The first source, a journal article by Ekici and Ekici (2020), provides a historical overview of the law’s development and highlights how emotional public support, rather than data-driven policymaking, led to its implementation. This context is vital to understanding the law’s foundational flaws, as it underscores a tendency toward reactive rather than evidence-based policy creation. I will analyze how this political dynamic contributed to the law’s unintended negative outcomes, reinforcing the importance of empirical backing in criminal justice policymaking.

The second source, a research article by Bird et al. (2022), details the specific sentencing mechanisms under the Three-Strikes Law. It clarifies how the policy increases prison sentences based on criminal history and discusses its intended goal of reducing crime. By evaluating the law’s actual effects, this source will support my critique of whether the law effectively achieved its crime deterrence objectives or merely compounded incarceration issues without significant crime reduction benefits.

The third source, a thesis by Oruru (2024), examines the broader social repercussions of mandatory sentencing laws, focusing on racial and socioeconomic disparities. This work demonstrates that policies like Three-Strikes disproportionately impact marginalized communities, leading to systemic injustice and social fragmentation. Incorporating this perspective, my paper will argue that equitable justice requires reforming policies that perpetuate inequality, highlighting the need for a balanced approach emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment.

The fourth source by Chen et al. (2023), an empirical study analyzing courtroom dynamics, critically explores how judicial and administrative factors influence the implementation of reforms like Proposition 36, a 2012 legislative change to the law. This scientific analysis will allow me to evaluate whether procedural bottlenecks and political influences impede effective reform, offering tangible insights into the practical challenges facing criminal justice reforms.

The fifth source, a comprehensive review by Oseguera (2021), consolidates existing research and policy critiques, emphasizing the law’s failure to reduce crime and its role in increasing racial disparities. I will use this source to provide a nuanced argument that emphasizes the law’s contradictions and to argue for policy reforms prioritizing fairness, rehabilitation, and evidence-based practices.

In my paper, I will synthesize these perspectives to demonstrate that California's Three-Strikes Law, despite its intentions, has exacerbated social inequities and failed to deliver on its public safety promises. I will advocate for a reform approach based on empirical research, racial equity, and restorative justice principles, emphasizing that criminal justice policies should serve both safety and fairness.

References

• Ekici, S., & Ekici, E. (2020). Justice and policy development California’s Three Strikes Law. European Journal of Science and Theology, 16(6), 131–148.
• Bird, M., Gill, O., Lacoe, J., Pickard, M., Raphael, S., & Skog, A. (2022). Three Strikes in California. Escholarship.org.
• Oruru, M. (2024). Three Strikes, then Two Strikes You’re Out: Effects of Mandatory Sentencing Laws on Incarceration. The Impact in Georgia. Africana Studies Theses.
• Chen, E. Y., Chung, E. Q., & Sands, E. (2023). Courtroom workgroup dynamics and implementation of Three Strikes reform. Law & Policy.
• Oseguera, P. (2021). California’s Three Strikes Law (TSL): A Review of the Literature, Policy Implications, and a Proposal for Dismantling TSL Legislation.