Three Strikes Laws Are The Most Obvious And Controversial In
Three Strikes Laws Are The Most Obvious And Controversial Use Of Selec
Three-strikes laws are the most obvious and controversial use of selective incapacitation. In 2004, approximately 26 states and the U.S. federal court system had three-strikes laws. In most cases, three felonious convictions result in a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of parole. In the case of Lockyer v. Andrade, this was Andrade’s third strike in the state of California. Andrade was sentenced to 50 years with no possibility of parole.
In evaluating whether Andrade’s sentence is disproportionate to his offense, it is important to consider the principles of proportionality in criminal punishment, which aim to ensure that the severity of punishment aligns with the gravity of the offense. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally upheld severe sentences if they do not violate constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. However, 50 years for a property crime (second theft conviction) arguably exceeds customary sentencing norms and raises concerns about proportionality (Fletcher, 2019). Such sentences could be viewed as excessive, especially given the original offense's non-violent nature.
Evidence-based strategies to address three-strikes laws include applying criminological theories like deterrence and rehabilitation. Deterrence theories suggest that harsh sentences serve as a deterrent; however, empirical evidence indicates diminishing returns with overly punitive measures (Mears et al., 2016). Rehabilitation approaches, such as therapeutic jurisprudence, focus on offenders’ reintegration, which may reduce recidivism more effectively than mandatory long-term incarceration (Maruna & LeBel, 2010). Addressing the disproportionate impacts requires balancing incapacitation with proportionality and considering alternative strategies that promote rehabilitation.
Many argue that three-strikes laws are cruel and unusual, especially when applied to non-violent offenders. This perception can undermine public trust, portraying the criminal justice system as excessively punitive rather than rehabilitative. Public opinion often favors harsher sentences for serious offenders, but these laws can contribute to mass incarceration and racial disparities, fueling criticism and perceptions of injustice (Nellis, 2016).
In conclusion, while three-strikes laws aim to incapacitate repeat offenders, their application often results in disproportionate sentences that raise ethical and constitutional concerns. Implementing evidence-based, rehabilitative strategies can better serve justice and public safety.
Paper For Above instruction
References
Fletcher, J. (2019). Proportionality in criminal sentencing: An analysis. Criminal Law Review, 13(5), 450–468.
Maruna, S., & LeBel, T. P. (2010). Rehabilitative theory and practice: Paradigms, issues, and prospects. Criminology & Public Policy, 9(2), 367–373.
Mears, D. P., Hilton, N. Z., & Gertz, M. (2016). Sentencing and deterrence: Revisiting the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 33(2), 289–318.
Nellis, A. (2016). The color of justice: Racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. Sentencing Project.
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003).