In the proposition of this proposed ballot initiative, it states that crimes such as house robberies and burglaries will not be counted as "serious felonies". Making criminal threats will also no longer be considered a serious felony. Alterations to the law will also make it easier for convicts to petition the courts for reduced sentences, because even though it was permitted as of 2012, it was not often possible. Limitations were set on the number of strikes a convict could be given at a time to one, whereas there previously were no rules against counting multiple felonies in one case as separate strikes.
If these changes to the law are passed, there will be mixed opinions among the public. Some still favor the harsh regulations under the original law of 1994, while others want this policy as scaled back as possible. Being a very controversial topic has made it hard for the state of California to alter the law in major ways, so this act could be pivotal. Do you think that there are more benefits to a tighter three strikes law or a looser three strikes law? Are there possible deficits to the three strikes law as it stands now?
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-petition-drive-three-strikes-20151020-story.html
http://www.courts.ca.gov/20142.htm
2 comments:
I think a looser three strikes law would be beneficial. The current law seems too rigid and set in stone. After three felonies, the minimum amount of jail time a criminal can receive is 25 years, then they can sometimes be tried for parole after those years are completed. This seems pretty extreme to me. Shouldn't the minimum number of years in prison be determined circumstantially? It is good that minor felonies like theft are not being counted as "serious felonies" toward this rule, but it is still unnecessary to establish such a harsh, rigid law. Some criminals definitely should be in prison for that long of a period of time, but a sentence should be determined for each individual case, not it accordance with a one size fits all type of law.
As far as pleasing the public, it will be very difficult for the government to make a ruling that will make everyone happy because it is so controversial. Not matter what, a large group of people are going to be happy, while another will be outraged. In my opinion, it would be more beneficial to loosen the law because it gives people more of a chance at returning to their previous lives.
I agree with Caitlyn. The three strikes law is far too harsh even after revision. I believe that crimes vary in severity and sentencing should be based on that. Setting a standard of 25 years is not fair because one crime may not be as serious as another. This problem is apparent across America, sentencing is not proportional to the actual severity of the crime.
I also find the three strike rule unjust because the mentally ill seem to be arrested more in California because of this law. "According to a 2011 analysis of state data by Stanford Law School’s Three Strikes Project, nearly 40 percent of these inmates qualify as mentally ill and are receiving psychiatric services behind bars." Many of the mentally ill inmates are there because of an inadequate defense attorney who did not present evidence of the person's disability.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/california-horror-stories-and-the-3-strikes-law.html?_r=0
Post a Comment