'Three strikes' and mandatory sentences

 

Are long mandatory sentences and three-strike policies adequate for reducing the chronic offender population?

 Introduction

A mandatory sentence is a type of criminal sentence that require offenders who have committed a serious offense to receive a fixed penalty in the absence of judicial discretion. The three-strike policy is a law that states that offenders of a serious violent felony and have been convicted one or two times due to serious violent felony should receive mandatory imprisonment. Proponents of 'three strikes' and mandatory sentences assert that chronic offenders require mandatory sentences without probation or parole to decrease crime rate in the community. However, 'three strikes' and mandatory sentences are not adequate for reducing the chronic offender population in that the transfer of sentencing power from judges to prosecutors is unjust. As a result, the ‘three strikes' and mandatory sentences will not have a deterring effect but rather, it will increase crime since the offenders who have committed one felony will resist arrest to avoid a long jail sentence. Three strikes' and mandatory sentences is also associated with unintended consequences which increase crime rate and chronic offenders.

According to Smith (2010) ‘three strikes' and mandatory sentences are cruel and unusual. For example, cruel and unusual punishment is a punishment that violates human rights, a punishment that is not equal, and too much punishment that do not fit the crime. In this case, the 'three strikes' and mandatory sentences are cruel and unusual because some offenders will suffer from life imprisonment yet their offenses do not fit harsh punishment (Smith, 2010). For example, a criminal may be involved three-time felons. These crimes may be nonviolence such as burglary, shoplifting, or sales of drugs. According to the principle of proportionality, offenders of serious crimes require harsh punishment and criminal of less violent crimes require less punishment. Therefore, 'three strikes' and mandatory sentences will not deter crime or reduce chronic offenders and people will not agree with the long punishment in some crimes (Smith, 2010). They will feel that long imprisonment is unjustifiable and severe. This is will result in a conflict of interest between the state and the individual and once individuals realize that the state has neglected the principle of proportionality, they will believe that all offenses whether serious or not are subjected to long imprisonment. Therefore, the three strikes and mandatory sentences will not achieve the goal of deterrence since the offenders in the community will shift from small-scale offenses such as shoplifting to a large-scale offense like rape (Smith, 2010).  Note that individuals are aware that rape and shoplifting are treated as similar offenses. Another important point to note that criminals are influenced by drugs. This means that many offenders either use drugs and alcohol before engaging in aggressive crimes. Since there is a direct relationship between crime and drugs, it means that criminals do have a second thought of being caught (Chen, 2008). Once they are caught, they will be taken in jail and they will report they were under the influence of drugs.

 'Three strikes' and mandatory sentences cannot reduce the chronic offender's population because the policy targets offenders who are aging behind bars. Note that offenders who are subjected to mandatory sentences have already committed three serious crimes. What about those who have committed one crime?  An important point to note is that majority of juvenile offenders continue with criminal behavior during adulthood (Rhoades et al. 2016). Though some desist during adolescents, the majority are at higher risks of performing criminal behaviors in the future. This indicates that if adolescents commit their first offense at adolescence, they will commit other offenses during adulthood. Therefore, there is evidence that the three-strike policies and mandatory sentences cannot reduce chronic offenses due to the strong continuity of offending. Criminologists assert that criminals who have committed three serious crimes have 32-36 years (King & Mauer, 2001). The young criminals who are in their late teens or early twenties will continue with a violent crime until their fit in the three strike criteria. Thus, it is important to understand that the crime-prone age is 15 and 25 and the age in which  they a will  commit  the third serious crime they will be in their mid-30s (King & Mauer, 2001) .Therefore, the 'Three strikes' and mandatory sentences will not cause deterrence nor will it reduce chronic felonies. 

  'Three strikes' and mandatory sentences are also unable to reduce chronic offenders due to other unintended consequences. For example, higher rates of incarceration are causing social disruption in the community. For example, the government concentrates so much on corrections and less on education, economy, health, and other social factors (Chen, 2008). The families and society at large experience financial problems. The financial burden and lack of employment increase social insecurity. Young people engage in violent crimes such as robbery and burglary to make ends meet. Thus, rather than deterring crime and reducing chronic offenders, 'three strikes' and mandatory sentences contribute to other unintended consequences that increase the rate of offenses such as theft, rape, robbery, and others (Chen,  2008). It is important to note that the community plays a significant role in enforcing rules and ensuring that people abide by social norms. However, when the government weakens social institutions, people have no other option other than engaging in violence and crime. Even though long imprisonment may prevent criminals from continuing with crimes, the strategy is not enough to reduce chronic offenders simply because young offenders will emerge (Chen, 2008). An important point to note is that many factors increase the rates of crime. For example, if one offender is imprisoned for drug sales, there other criminals selling drugs and therefore, there is no reduction of crime. It is important to note that when offenders who have committed three offenses are incarcerated, the prison is full of aging population and the community is full of younger offenders (Chen, 2008). The prison will also need higher costs to care for the older population. The number of chronic offenders will never go down because when the older offenders will be released, there is a likelihood that they will commit non-violent crimes.

Conclusion

 Opponents of three strikes and long mandatory argue that incarcerated offenders will commit new crimes in the community and hence lower the crime to reduce chronic offenders. However, mandatory imprisonment contribute to future danger in that offenders convicted due to their serious offenses have left behind other offenders who have committed one serious crime. There is a likelihood that the young offenders in the community will continue to engage in the violent act and the society will not be able to control the crime. Note that only active offenders will be incarcerated and the frequency of offending will continue to rise among the younger criminals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Chen, E. Y. (2008). Impacts of “three strikes and you're out” on crime trends in California and

throughout the United States. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24(4), 345-370.

 

King, R. S., & Mauer, M. (2001). Aging behind bars:" three strikes" seven years later.

Sentencing Project.

 

Rhoades, K. A., Leve, L. D., Eddy, J. M., & Chamberlain, P. (2016). Predicting the transition

from juvenile delinquency to adult criminality: Gender‐specific influences in two high‐

risk samples. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 26(5), 336-351.

 

 Smith Rich. (2010). Eighth Amendment: The Right to Mercy.  ABDO Publishing Company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Reccomdnation

Prevention and rehabikittaion