The
three strikes law are meant to raise the prison sentences for offenders being incarcerated
for a serious felony such as a violent crime and who have previously committed
two other felonies that were serious or very violent crimes. The “three strikes
law places a life sentences on those types of criminals. The reason for this
law to be created was to deter crime and keep offenders from reoffending, also the
courts and the community felt that the law needed to get tougher on crime. The punishment
of course must be proportionate to the crimes, some of the crimes for example
were Murder, Arson, Rape with force, violence or threat or great bodily harm,
lewd or lascivious acts, Kidnapping, Assault, Attempted murder, Assault with
firearm, a violent felony, carjacking, and even manufacturing a large amount of
illegal substance.

There
were many who have opposed and stood for the three-strike law, some said it was
unconstitutional and the punishment was too severe. Others stated that the punishment
should fit the crime. In the case of (Ewing
v California, pg. 269 Pearlman M, Cripe, C, Kosiak D,) Ewing had been
convicted of a felony grand theft. The court sentenced him under the “three
strikes law’, and he received a term up to 25 years to life. Now Ewing had been
convicted two other times of a felony which were serious or violent, and
according to the law if the defendant had been previously convicted of at least
two other serious violent felonies the law would apply to them. According to
the supreme Court this punishment was not in fact grossly disproportionate to
the severity of the crime that was committed, and it didn’t violate the Eighth Amendment
ban on cruel and unusual punishment. (p.269). According to an article the three
strikes law can be very beneficial. The three-strike law would remove many
violent and harmful offenders from the community, neighborhoods and the population.
The three strikes law would keep our streets free from violent crimes and our children
safe from becoming victims of violent criminal acts. The three-strike law would
keep violent criminals in prison for a long time who aren’t able to be rehabilitative
change, and reoffend. It is believed that it is a deterrent of crime, it would
reduce felony arrest, would keep recurrent offenders in prison, would give
justice to the victim and would only apply to convictions. It would keep the
offenders from reoffending and make society a safer place.  According to the Bureau of Justice statistics of
the federal inmates arrested 45% will be again incarcerated within 5 years of
them being released back into their communities and 77% of all inmates are arrested
again within these 5 years. In a Swedish survey they found that 15% of the
population had accounted for 63% of violent crime convictions.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Not
only do adults commit crime but juvenile offenders do as well, the crime committed
by juveniles range from Assault, Robbery, Rape, homicide, Auto theft, Burglary,
Larceny/Theft, Vandalism, and weapons possession. They have committed drug and
alcohol crimes such as drunk and disorderly, drug abuse, sexual offenses, such
as prostitution and rape.  There are
instances where juveniles are tried as adults depending on the offense, the severity
of the crime and age. Juveniles have been sentenced to a life sentences and
have also stood on death row. I think that if a juvenile at the age of 15 or 16
commits a crime violent or not and knowingly knows that it is wrong should suffer
the consequences of his actions. I think if the court can prove intent, mental stability,
has evidence and can show the juvenile understood his actions he should be
liable. I agree that a juvenile can and should be given the three-strike law,
but only under the conditions that the law states, one his/her age should be a
factor, their history, the past crimes and if any were in fact felony violent
crimes and how severe they were. According to an article juvenile offense can
count towards the three-strike law under California penal code 667(d)(3)(a). For
it to qualify the offender had to of been 16 when the crime was committed, if
the prior offenses was considered serious or violent, determined to be ward of
the court and fit to be dealt with under juvenile court. So, if the court could
use your juvenile offenses against you then why shouldn’t the three strike laws
apply to juveniles if it’s a serious felony. Yes, juveniles can be more apt to
change, but there are those who do not change and continue to commit crime, Juvenile
crime has continued to rise, and you see more and more of them becoming violent.
This whole slap on the wrist, boot camp, and probation just isn’t working. Juveniles
are becoming very disrespectful towards authority such as parents and the law.
You see many reoffending and going back into the system According to another
article on Juvenile Justice http://jjie.org/2013/05/22/pennsylvania-finds-20-percent-of-juveniles-re-offend-within-two-years/
Pennsylvania found that about 20% of juveniles reoffend within two years of
being released. In 2007 26% of juvenile cases that were closed were of serious,
chronic, or violent offenders. The recidivisms rate had also risen from 31% for
violent offenders to 37% for the chronic offenses.

According
to a Pittsburg Youth study 52 too 57 percent of juveniles continue to offend up
to the age of 25. According to another report violent crimes among the youth
had increased to 7 percent, and the percent of crimes such as murder committed by
youths under the age of 18 had also increased dramatically over about one
hundred and fifty percent between 1985-1994. Studies show that 17% of the violent
crime that had been committed din 1991 had been in fact committed by juveniles.
I believe that if a juvenile can be tried as adult under special circumstances,
can receive a life sentence, and placed on death row then surely the three
strikes law can apply to them as well. There are 19 states that allow execution
for juveniles 16 and up and 73are currently on death row for committing crimes
when they were juveniles.

 I honestly believe that even juveniles at the age
of 14 know what right from wrong is. They know and understand if they are
breaking the law, at the age of 12-14 I began using drugs. Its started with marijuana
and then eventually lead up to meth, I understand what drugs were and made my
own deacons in using and understood the consequences. I knew what I was doing
was wrong and knew that it was illegal. Therefore, I was held accountable for
my actions and took responsibility. I agreed with the decision made against me
and accepted it, my mom tried to say that I was just a child and didn’t understand,
but I fully did. I’m glad I was caught because from then on, I never touched another
drug in my life and respected the law. I am now studying law in hopes that I
could make a change. I understand the law wants to protect juveniles and give
them a chance at life, but some don’t want to and continue their criminal path.
I do believe they still should be granted the same rights and be treated fairly.
They should be afforded the same rights as adults if they are to be treated a
tried as an adult. The law should apply to everyone, but the punishments should
fit the crimes and be given fair trials.

Clair Cripe, M. P. (2012). Legal Aspects of
Corrections Management.

Klarich, S. (2010, May 18). W/K Wallen and Klarich.
Retrieved from
https://www.wklaw.com/areas-three-strikes-prior-juvenile-convictions.htm

Mantaldo, C. (2017, april 1). ThoughCO. Retrieved
from https://www.thoughtco.com/death-penalty-for-juveniles-972256

Shouse California Law Group. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.shouselaw.com/juvenile-strikes.html

Swift, J. (2013, 5 22). Juvenile Justice
Information Exchange . Retrieved from http://jjie.org/2013/05/22/pennsylvania-finds-20-percent-of-juveniles-re-offend-within-two-years/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written by
admin
x

Hi!
I'm Colleen!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out