Here are 3 reason to oppose the 3 strike law
1. "3 Strikes" Is An Old Law Dressed Up In New Clothes
Although its supporters act as if it is something new, "3 Strikes" is really just a variation on an old theme. States have had habitual offender laws and recidivist statutes for years. All of these laws impose stiff penalties, up to and including life s entences, on repeat offenders. The 1987 Federal Sentencing Guidelines and mandatory minimum sentencing laws in most states are also very tough on repeaters. The government may be justified in punishing a repeat offender more severely than a first offender, but "3 Strikes" laws are overkill.
2. "3 Strikes" Laws Won't Deter Most Violent Crimes
Its supporters claim that "3 Strikes" laws will have a deterrent effect on violent crime. But these laws will probably not stop many criminals from committing violent acts. For one thing, most violent crimes are not premeditated. They are committed in anger, in the heat of passion or under the influence of alcohol. The prospect of a life s entence is not going to stop people who are acting impulsively, without thought to the likely consequences of their actions.
Another reason why repeat offenders do not consider the penalties they face before acting is because they do not anticipate being c aught, and they are right. According to the American Bar Association, out of the approximately 34 million serious crimes committed each year in the U.S., only 3 million result in arrests.
3. "3 Strikes" Laws Could Lead To An Increase In Violence
Many law enforcement professionals oppose the "3 Strikes" law out of fear such laws would spur a dramatic increase in violence against police, corrections officers and the public. A criminal facing the prospect of a mandatory life sentence will be far more likely to resist arrest, to kill witnesses or to attempt a prison escape. Dave Paul, a corrections officer from Milwaukee, Oregon, wrote in a newspaper article: "Imagine a law enforcement officer trying to arrest a twice-convicted felon who has nothing to lose by using any means necessary to escape. Expect assaults on police and correctional officers to rise precipitously." (Portland Oregonian, 3/94). Ironically, these laws may cause more, not less, loss of life.
Check out all 10 reasons here https://www.aclu.org/10-reasons-oppose-3-strikes-youre-out
The Supreme Court votes 8-1 decision to end the controversial 3 strike law
Finally it seems this unjust law has been abolished. Taking people away from their family has a large impact on society and the 3 strike law has not helped at all, only helped the prisons get filled up and tax payer dollars going to prison owners.
Scalia wrote, for the 8-1 majority, that “it has been said that the life of the law is experience. Nine years’ experience trying to derive meaning from the residual clause convinces us that we have embarked upon a failed enterprise.”
Samuel Alito, argued a dissenting opinion, saying that the man in the case before them – Samuel James Johnson – was a violent offender who should be punished severely.
Both Justices Kennedy and Thomas agreed with the assessment of this specific anecdotal case, but said that the law itself has unconstitutional elements that cannot be allowed to stand.
The Three Strikes Laws across the nation have now been gutted so that in the states where this approach has been implemented, it must be completely rewritten now if it is to exist at all. This is great news for people who agree that no one should server a life-sentence for bouncing checks! http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/07/supreme-court-strikes-down-unconstitutional/
This law should never have been passed so carelessly to start. The prison systems are packed with inmates, it's becoming another monopoly over money and the people are the cattle in place.
This is good news and you should share it with others to get the word out.
No comments:
Post a Comment