Key Assignment Draft In Those States With The Three Strikes

Key Assignment Draftin Those States With The Three Strikes Laws Any P

Develop a policy regarding the three strikes laws in the State of California. Address the following in your policy: What alternatives would be placed in the law to give the state prosecutor more freedom to manipulate the third strike? Many prosecutors “load up” charges against defendants to force a plea bargain. What can be done to limit or prevent this practice? Will your policy allow multiple counts arising from the same incident to count as multiple strikes? (For instance, a man arrested for aggravated robbery because of the use of a weapon is charged with aggravated robbery and a felony gun possession charge. Should that count as 1 strike or 2?) If one of the alternatives was supervised probation, how would you convince the public that it would be more cost-effective for the person to be supervised than incarcerated? Show the public where you would be saving money by not incarcerating the perpetrator. If brought up in the legislature to be an amendment to the law, could this be grandfathered in to help older inmates? Could this have a backlash from the public, or would they approve? How? Why? Once you are finished with the policy, draft an executive summary of the policy to be used for political decision making. Use 6–10 scholarly resources to support the provisions of your policy. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are not scholarly sources. Look at federal and state legislation and court cases. Be sure to reference all sources using APA style.

Paper For Above instruction

The three strikes law in California was enacted with the intention of reducing violent crime by imposing stringent sentencing on repeat offenders. However, the law has faced criticism for its rigidity, potential to contribute to prison overpopulation, and the disproportionate impact on nonviolent offenders. As a policymaker, it is essential to craft a reform that balances public safety, fiscal responsibility, and fairness within the criminal justice system. This paper proposes an adapted policy framework that incorporates alternatives to mandatory life sentences upon the third strike, mechanisms to limit prosecutorial overreach, and strategies to garner public support through cost-effective measures.

Alternatives to Strict Three Strikes Enforcement: To enhance prosecutorial discretion while reducing unnecessary incarceration, the law should include provisions for alternative sentencing options such as supervised probation or community-based interventions for nonviolent third strikes. For example, if the third conviction involves a nonviolent felony, offenders could be eligible for sentencing alternatives that promote rehabilitation. These alternatives would be codified into the law through a tiered sentencing system that considers the nature of the third offense, the defendant’s criminal history, and risk assessment evaluations.

Limiting Prosecutorial Overreach: Prosecutors often “load up” charges, stacking multiple felony counts to pressure defendants into plea bargains. To mitigate this, the policy would establish clear guidelines and limitations on the number of charges that can constitute a single third strike, especially when multiple counts arise from the same incident. For instance, in cases involving weapon use and robbery, the law should specify whether charges are aggregated as one strike or counted separately. This could involve statutory language that recognizes related charges as a single strike unless separate incidents occur.

Handling Multiple Counts and Incidents: When multiple charges stem from a single criminal act, the policy would define criteria for counting these as either a single strike or multiple strikes. For example, if a defendant is charged with both armed robbery and firearm possession during the same incident, these should be recognized as one strike given their interconnected nature. Conversely, separate incidents occurring cumulatively over time would be justifiably counted as multiple strikes. This approach promotes fairness and prevents artificially inflating a defendant’s strike count.

Cost-Effectiveness and Public Perception: Instead of automatic imprisonment for all third strikes, supervised probation or other community supervision programs can be cost-effective alternatives. To persuade the public, communication campaigns should highlight the financial savings derived from reduced incarceration rates, including decreased prison operational costs and personnel expenses. Studies indicate that supervised probation can significantly reduce state expenditures while maintaining public safety, especially for nonviolent offenders (Bonczek & McInnis, 2017). Demonstrating fiscal savings and emphasizing benefits such as community reintegration and recidivism reduction can bolster public support.

Grandfathering Older Inmates: To avoid disproportionately affecting older inmates, the policy could include provisions to grandfather existing inmates who are nearing the expiration of their current sentences or are already serving lengthy terms under previous laws. This approach would mitigate backlash from advocacy groups and the public, who may perceive retroactive law changes as unjust. Public opinion might favor such grandfathering, especially if communicated as compassionate and fiscally responsible, recognizing that older inmates pose less threat and have limited likelihood of reoffending.

Potential Public Backlash and Political Feasibility: While reform efforts aim to strike a balance between safety and fairness, there could be resistance from constituents fearing an increase in crime or perceiving softer sentencing as leniency. However, framing the reforms around fiscal responsibility, evidence of reduced recidivism, and data showing the inefficiency of mandatory harsh sentences can foster public acceptance. Political leaders must employ data-driven campaigns and transparency to garner support.

Executive Summary: The proposed policy reforms seek to introduce nuanced sentencing alternatives within California’s three strikes law, emphasizing community-based options for nonviolent offenders and clarifying charge aggregation to prevent prosecutorial overreach. It advocates for fiscal responsibility by reducing unnecessary incarceration costs, promotes fairness through grandfathering provisions, and emphasizes transparency to build public support. Lawmakers must focus on balancing public safety with economic sustainability while ensuring justice remains fair and equitable.

References

• Bonczek, M., & McInnis, B. (2017). Cost-benefit analysis of community supervision programs. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(2), 118-130.
• Cali. Penal Code § 667 (2020).
• California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (2021). Cost and capacity report.
• Erickson, M., & Feld, B. (2018). Prosecutorial discretion and plea bargaining. Harvard Law Review, 131(3), 765-804.
• Fletcher, E. (2019). Sentencing reform and public safety. American Criminal Law Review, 17(4), 987-1012.
• Jones, D. (2020). Aging inmates and criminal justice policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(6), 643-656.
• McCarty, N., & Dozier, K. (2019). The impact of three strikes laws on incarceration rates. Justice Quarterly, 36(5), 842-866.
• U.S. Supreme Court. (2003). Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11.
• Walmsley, R. (2018). World prison brief: Incarceration trends globally. World Prison Brief. Retrieved from https://www.prisonstudies.org
• Wilson, J., & Johnson, A. (2019). Public opinion and criminal justice reform. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83(4), 837-858.