Exemplification Essay: Three-Strikes Law is a Mindless Response to Crime

In 1983, a young man named Michael was taken to court in Pennsylvania with armed robbery. He stole $ 50 from a taxi driver with a toy gun. A few days later he was arrested and later convicted. The judge sent Michael a six-month imprisonment and asked for a repayment of 50 dollars, but the prosecutor asked the state law to impose a minimum of five years sentences. The judge ruled that the compulsory criminal code is unconstitutional, and Michael sentenced himself to repay the money.

In 1994, California voters enacted "three strikes and you out of the law" against the tragic killing of Kimber Reynolds and Polly class. If the defendant was convicted twice before because the California Penal Code was defined as a serious or violent crime, the law sentenced almost all offenses to death penalty. According to official ballot materials that promoted the first three strikes, the aim of this decision was that "putting murder, rape criminal, child whore behind the prison". Judge to serve nonviolent crimes

The premise of the three strikes is most applicable to serious or violent crime The key word is that a felony is convicted. Indeed, there are areas of gray between three strikes and nonviolent crimes and criminals. For example, an improperly written check will be sentenced to a certain person, and if he / she is convicted for the third time, he / she may face three strikes. Discussion on whether to be jailed for nonviolent crime and ongoing nonviolent crime

Vitiello believes that the three strike laws have no effect on reducing serious crimes and that legal costs are not good for our society. Vitiello explained that the assertions of the three strike supporters are based on empirical data defining legal efficiency. The effectiveness of the law is supported by data unrelated to the three strikes. According to a report from California, the crime rate has declined before the three strikes and the crime did not change dramatically after three strikes. Mr. Vitielo further insists that legislators were unable to find a marginal deterrent when trying to measure deterrence for three strikes. Several changes have been made, but there is no big explanation for the decline in the crime rate. The law itself does not help the criminal justice system. Vitiero compared California and its country's average crime rate. Therefore, three strikes will not affect the decline in the crime rate.