Week 3-Discussion-Three Stikes Law
The Three Strikes Law (and you’re out) laws provide lengthy terms for any person convicted of three felony offenses, even if the third crime is relatively trivial. The law is applied differently in different state jurisdictions. Some require all three felony convictions to be for violent crimes in order for the mandatory sentence to be pronounced, whereas others provide enhanced sentencing for any third felony conviction as long as the first two felonies were deemed to be either violent or serious, or both. In two well-known California cases, defendants received life sentences for (a) stealing a slice of pizza and (b) stealing chocolate chip cookies. The pizza thief Jerry Dewayne Williams had his sentence reduced to “only six years” for a slice of pizza. Is it fair to give someone a life sentence for a petty crime merely because she or he has prior convictions?
Please post your response regarding the discussion topic. Remember that your response must be 300 words in length.
Week 3-Discussion-Three Strikes Law
The Three Strikes Law is based on criminal sentencing based on a structure that significantly leads to a harsher punishment based on imposing on repetitive offenders. Therefore, the three-strikes law is generally based on a mandate form of life based on creating a life sentence based on a third violation based on violent felonies. Thus, right after watching the video, I could realize the suffering one has to stay living in California. Thus, it is true that in the case of Californian case, many of the defendants might have received a severe life sentence, just because of stealing a piece of pizza or stealing chocolate chip cookies. Prior to this, I would like to state about the Three Strikes Injustice, which is published in New York Times about Shane, who is convicted under the Three Strikes Injustice because once he attempted burglary and another time he was convicted for drug abuse (Youtube.com 2013). Thus, I find it a bit unfair that those who are murdering, slaughtering people in a chain, serial killers, or even rapists are getting plea bargains based on their negotiation for justice. Hence, these are the people, who are deprived of the situation of getting life sentences or even death penalties. Apparently, people with lenient cases, like burglary or drug use shall get a nominal punishment or fine for their wrongdoings.
Hence, in the case of Shane Taylor, as shown in the video, more than 4,000 inmates in California are serving a life sentence under the three-strikes law, based on non-violent crimes. Apart from this, this is an unfair process to give life-sentence to criminals who are convicted of a non-criminal act (Youtube.com 2012). Hence, the justice of the United States has to develop a clear idea so that they can gain the profit of plea of bargain based on the negotiation that they do towards the justice court. As a result, the culprits doing sexual harassment to teen-aged girls and under-aged children should get punishments under the three-strike law because they are convicted to offer life sentencing. In fact, the people who are associated with murder, are often getting notice under the plea of a bargain, so they are released on an easy note. Thus, they are supposed to get life sentences, under Constitutional law, so it is mandatory for the judges to give them life sentences and a penalty for murdering or raping, which is actually counted under the violent crime act.
References
Youtube.com (2012). Three Strikes of Injustice | Op-Docs | The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJotrsvQbNU [Retrieved 18th January, 2022]
Youtube.com (2013). Life in Prison for Shoplifting Under 3 Strikes Law | Brainwash Update. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4q9fvtzjWg [Retrieved 18th January, 2022]
