Nubblies.net Forums - Wtf Did You Google To End Up Here? - View Single Post

Ugly Bastard · 12-12-2004, 08:04 PM

The Ethics of California's Three Strikes Law

Twenty-five years to life in prison for stealing a bottle of shampoo? It happened to Ronnie Villa, grandfather of four. William Anderson received twenty-five to life for possessing a forged driver’s license. Michael Morgan is currently in prison for the rest of his life because he stole a bicycle from an open garage while intoxicated (Braz). What do these three people have in common? They all live in California and they are all repeat convicts. Welcome to the zany world of California’s three-strikes law. The law went into effect in March of 1994. The first two “strikes” for any felon must be a serious felony, but the third strike that sends them away for life can be any felony in the book, including a petty shoplifting offense. Obviously, this law was created to cut down on the number of repeat offenses that are seen in California. Yet by creating this law, is California crossing the line of justifiable sentencing? Sending a grandfather of four to prison for life after stealing a bottle of shampoo seems inhumane, whether that same grandfather was involved in a couple armed robberies in his youth or not. Yet even the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the three-strikes law with a vote of 5-4 in 2003 (Lane). The law also doubles the prison sentence of all second strike offenses. No doubt the stiffest and perhaps most inhumane sentencing law in the nation, California’s three-strikes law has undergone a magnitude of criticism. This paper will weigh the ethical issues involved in California’s three-strikes law.
Since implementing the three-strikes law, California’s crime rate has gone down 32.7% compared to just 13.1% for the rest of the nation (Reynolds). This statistic cannot be ignored. The fear of being caught and punished with a long prison sentence has deterred several criminals from committing repeat felonies. Reynolds himself reports on his pro-three strikes website that New York state has bested California during this stretch of time with a 33.4% reduction in crime. New York accomplished this by adding 34,000 new policing jobs throughout the state, not by compromising the ethics of criminal law to brush aside repeat offenders.
Today there are 20,000 three-strikes prisoners in California. In the November 2004 election, all 20,000 were up for a shot to go free (Reynolds). If voted for, Proposition 66 on the California ballot would call for the remedy of the three-strikes sentencing guidelines. The liberal voters of California could not ignore the fact that the law has reduced crime greatly in their state, and issued a conservative “no” in regards to amending the law. The twenty thousand prisoners who still sit in prison today after Proposition 66 was shot down know that over 600,000 more people voted against the proposition than for it (Reynolds). Critics of Proposition 66 feared that California’s crime rate would return to its ultra-high rate in the early 90s if the three-strikes law was tossed out the window. The reversal of crime rate is not a guaranteed if the three-strikes law were dropped. Twenty-four states have had greater reductions in crime than California in the past ten years, none of these states have anything similar to a three-strikes law (Sperling). The ethical doctrine in criminal law that “the punishment should fit the crime” is again and again overlooked in this case. When being mindful of prior crimes committed during sentencing, is California not participating in an obscure form of double-jeopardy? These criminals who are going to prison for life after stealing a cookie were told that they “paid their debt to society” after their last crime. Now those prior crimes are being brought out of the woodwork again, and used to lock up the gate forever on these individuals. Of course, it is easy to look at all the “cookie theft” and “shampoo ordeal” crimes to make a sad case against the three-strikes rule. Let’s take a look at the other side.
A man in his forties brutally rapes a young college girl after sneaking into her dorm and waiting for her to return from class. The man was convicted at the age of 22 for rape, and due to convincing mitigating circumstances, got off with just 4 years in prison. Later, at the age of 29, he rapes again, this time is sentenced to a much harsher, yet still mild, 9 years in prison. Now, at 41, he brutally rapes a young girl. In previous California law, this man might spend as little as another 15 years in prison for his third offense. Is this fair? Perhaps it is. But in March of 1994, California’s third-strikes law decided that it isn’t fair to give this man a hope of seeing the light of day again. Now, this same 41 year old man will be spending the rest of his life in prison. This case is a simple example of where the three-strikes law shines. A serial rapist sentenced to life in prison once and for all. Justice is served! Yet in their haze to lower crime rates, California forgot about all the Michael Morgans and the Ronnie Villas and the Willie Andersons. The oddball cases where harmless rehabilitated criminals have a moment of stupidity, commit a crime that normally would result in a couple months probation, but instead find themselves in prison for the rest of their lives, detached from their families and friends over a stupid bottle of shampoo.
An ethical issue of this variety makes it easy to not care. That is why Proposition 66 was shot down. Why should the people of California care what happens to criminals on trial for the third time in their life. They are dangerous to society, and they should be locked up for good. To the lawmakers and law-abiding voters in California, it is easy to implement the three-strikes law. After all, it is just going to make their lives better. The vast majority of people in California have zero criminal convictions, let alone two, so why be worried about how the three-strikes law will effect them, except to understand that it is going to reduce crime in their state. It is easy to see how the three-strikes law, as unethical as it is, could be so easily implemented into society. To most middle-class citizens, when a law comes across the desk that is going to lock up repeat offenders for life and reduce crime all over the state, it almost sounds too good to be true. But the three-strikes law comes at a great cost to the people of California.
The three-strikes law costs Californians an extra 4.5-6.5 billion dollars per year (Carroll). The intent of the three-strikes law is, of course, to lock up repeat offenders. This requires the construction and operation of more prisons. Some police and court costs may be saved when repeat offenders are locked up forever, but these savings do not dent into the overwhelming costs of jailing criminals. The three-strikes law casts a very wide net on criminals. All felonies are treated the same, therefore the law’s integrity is compromised. One of the alternatives recently considered by California lawmakers, known as the “Rainey Bill” would polarize the impact of the three-strikes law on felons. The bill calls for serious and violent felons to serve their entire prison sentence without the possibility for early release due to “good time served”, and in exchange from this, criminals with more minor crimes would be allowed to just serve probation rather than do time in prison (Carroll). Isn’t this what the three-strikes law intended to do from the beginning? Keep serious and violent offenders off the streets? Yet, somewhere in the mix, a problem occurred, and citizens participating in petty theft crimes suddenly started being sentenced to life in prison for stealing value-less goods. The Rainey Bill attempts to clean up the mess made by the three-strikes law, and rather than treat all felons the same, group them into two categories, violent and non-violent. This would allow regretful peoples in their 60s who have a sketchy past to be able to live out their life in the presence of their spouses and grandchildren, rather than Big Al and Mad Dog.
“They meant well” is a good phrase to sum up California when they implemented the three-strikes law into their criminal code. In its purest form, the three-strikes law is a novel way to lock up repeat criminals and clean up the crime rates of a region. But when ethics are being compromised by sending former armed robbers, turned petty shoplifters to prison for at least twenty-five years, the three-strikes law is nothing to be proud of. Although the dozens of prisoners serving life sentences under truly saddening circumstances lost a Supreme Court vote by a mere count of one last year, the future is hopeful for these people. The tide is turning on the outlook for the three-strikes law. Eventually, one way or another, it seems like justice is always served in this great country’s law. Surely the unethical practice of the three-strikes law won’t go on forever. Surely someday the word will get out about the unjustifiable outcomes of the three-strikes law. Surely.
Works Cited

Braz, Rose. "The Case Against California's 3 Strikes Law ." SFGate.com. 30 Dec. 1998
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...D75158.DTL>.

Lane, Charles . "California's '3-Strikes' Law Upheld." Fairness.com. 06 MAR. 2003 <http://www.fairness.com/resources/on...ce_id=5377>.

Reynolds, Mike . Three Strikes And You're Out: Stop Repeat Offenders. Threestrikes.org. 04 Nov. 2004 <http://www.threestrikes.org/>.

Sperling, Godfrey. Adjusting 'Three Strikes' Law. CSMonitor.com. 08 Jun. 2004 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0608/p08s03-comv.html>.

Carroll, Stephen . "Rand.org." California's Three Strikes Law. Rand Research. 30 Aug. 2002 <hhttp://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB4009/RB4009.word.html>.

_______________________________

Lemme know if any errors are sticking out in that. I didn't really proofread it.

-Ugly Bastard

12-12-2004, 08:04 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ugly Bastard Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 13,643 Internets: 247330	The Ethics of California's Three Strikes Law Twenty-five years to life in prison for stealing a bottle of shampoo? It happened to Ronnie Villa, grandfather of four. William Anderson received twenty-five to life for possessing a forged driver’s license. Michael Morgan is currently in prison for the rest of his life because he stole a bicycle from an open garage while intoxicated (Braz). What do these three people have in common? They all live in California and they are all repeat convicts. Welcome to the zany world of California’s three-strikes law. The law went into effect in March of 1994. The first two “strikes” for any felon must be a serious felony, but the third strike that sends them away for life can be any felony in the book, including a petty shoplifting offense. Obviously, this law was created to cut down on the number of repeat offenses that are seen in California. Yet by creating this law, is California crossing the line of justifiable sentencing? Sending a grandfather of four to prison for life after stealing a bottle of shampoo seems inhumane, whether that same grandfather was involved in a couple armed robberies in his youth or not. Yet even the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the three-strikes law with a vote of 5-4 in 2003 (Lane). The law also doubles the prison sentence of all second strike offenses. No doubt the stiffest and perhaps most inhumane sentencing law in the nation, California’s three-strikes law has undergone a magnitude of criticism. This paper will weigh the ethical issues involved in California’s three-strikes law. Since implementing the three-strikes law, California’s crime rate has gone down 32.7% compared to just 13.1% for the rest of the nation (Reynolds). This statistic cannot be ignored. The fear of being caught and punished with a long prison sentence has deterred several criminals from committing repeat felonies. Reynolds himself reports on his pro-three strikes website that New York state has bested California during this stretch of time with a 33.4% reduction in crime. New York accomplished this by adding 34,000 new policing jobs throughout the state, not by compromising the ethics of criminal law to brush aside repeat offenders. Today there are 20,000 three-strikes prisoners in California. In the November 2004 election, all 20,000 were up for a shot to go free (Reynolds). If voted for, Proposition 66 on the California ballot would call for the remedy of the three-strikes sentencing guidelines. The liberal voters of California could not ignore the fact that the law has reduced crime greatly in their state, and issued a conservative “no” in regards to amending the law. The twenty thousand prisoners who still sit in prison today after Proposition 66 was shot down know that over 600,000 more people voted against the proposition than for it (Reynolds). Critics of Proposition 66 feared that California’s crime rate would return to its ultra-high rate in the early 90s if the three-strikes law was tossed out the window. The reversal of crime rate is not a guaranteed if the three-strikes law were dropped. Twenty-four states have had greater reductions in crime than California in the past ten years, none of these states have anything similar to a three-strikes law (Sperling). The ethical doctrine in criminal law that “the punishment should fit the crime” is again and again overlooked in this case. When being mindful of prior crimes committed during sentencing, is California not participating in an obscure form of double-jeopardy? These criminals who are going to prison for life after stealing a cookie were told that they “paid their debt to society” after their last crime. Now those prior crimes are being brought out of the woodwork again, and used to lock up the gate forever on these individuals. Of course, it is easy to look at all the “cookie theft” and “shampoo ordeal” crimes to make a sad case against the three-strikes rule. Let’s take a look at the other side. A man in his forties brutally rapes a young college girl after sneaking into her dorm and waiting for her to return from class. The man was convicted at the age of 22 for rape, and due to convincing mitigating circumstances, got off with just 4 years in prison. Later, at the age of 29, he rapes again, this time is sentenced to a much harsher, yet still mild, 9 years in prison. Now, at 41, he brutally rapes a young girl. In previous California law, this man might spend as little as another 15 years in prison for his third offense. Is this fair? Perhaps it is. But in March of 1994, California’s third-strikes law decided that it isn’t fair to give this man a hope of seeing the light of day again. Now, this same 41 year old man will be spending the rest of his life in prison. This case is a simple example of where the three-strikes law shines. A serial rapist sentenced to life in prison once and for all. Justice is served! Yet in their haze to lower crime rates, California forgot about all the Michael Morgans and the Ronnie Villas and the Willie Andersons. The oddball cases where harmless rehabilitated criminals have a moment of stupidity, commit a crime that normally would result in a couple months probation, but instead find themselves in prison for the rest of their lives, detached from their families and friends over a stupid bottle of shampoo. An ethical issue of this variety makes it easy to not care. That is why Proposition 66 was shot down. Why should the people of California care what happens to criminals on trial for the third time in their life. They are dangerous to society, and they should be locked up for good. To the lawmakers and law-abiding voters in California, it is easy to implement the three-strikes law. After all, it is just going to make their lives better. The vast majority of people in California have zero criminal convictions, let alone two, so why be worried about how the three-strikes law will effect them, except to understand that it is going to reduce crime in their state. It is easy to see how the three-strikes law, as unethical as it is, could be so easily implemented into society. To most middle-class citizens, when a law comes across the desk that is going to lock up repeat offenders for life and reduce crime all over the state, it almost sounds too good to be true. But the three-strikes law comes at a great cost to the people of California. The three-strikes law costs Californians an extra 4.5-6.5 billion dollars per year (Carroll). The intent of the three-strikes law is, of course, to lock up repeat offenders. This requires the construction and operation of more prisons. Some police and court costs may be saved when repeat offenders are locked up forever, but these savings do not dent into the overwhelming costs of jailing criminals. The three-strikes law casts a very wide net on criminals. All felonies are treated the same, therefore the law’s integrity is compromised. One of the alternatives recently considered by California lawmakers, known as the “Rainey Bill” would polarize the impact of the three-strikes law on felons. The bill calls for serious and violent felons to serve their entire prison sentence without the possibility for early release due to “good time served”, and in exchange from this, criminals with more minor crimes would be allowed to just serve probation rather than do time in prison (Carroll). Isn’t this what the three-strikes law intended to do from the beginning? Keep serious and violent offenders off the streets? Yet, somewhere in the mix, a problem occurred, and citizens participating in petty theft crimes suddenly started being sentenced to life in prison for stealing value-less goods. The Rainey Bill attempts to clean up the mess made by the three-strikes law, and rather than treat all felons the same, group them into two categories, violent and non-violent. This would allow regretful peoples in their 60s who have a sketchy past to be able to live out their life in the presence of their spouses and grandchildren, rather than Big Al and Mad Dog. “They meant well” is a good phrase to sum up California when they implemented the three-strikes law into their criminal code. In its purest form, the three-strikes law is a novel way to lock up repeat criminals and clean up the crime rates of a region. But when ethics are being compromised by sending former armed robbers, turned petty shoplifters to prison for at least twenty-five years, the three-strikes law is nothing to be proud of. Although the dozens of prisoners serving life sentences under truly saddening circumstances lost a Supreme Court vote by a mere count of one last year, the future is hopeful for these people. The tide is turning on the outlook for the three-strikes law. Eventually, one way or another, it seems like justice is always served in this great country’s law. Surely the unethical practice of the three-strikes law won’t go on forever. Surely someday the word will get out about the unjustifiable outcomes of the three-strikes law. Surely. Works Cited Braz, Rose. "The Case Against California's 3 Strikes Law ." SFGate.com. 30 Dec. 1998 <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...D75158.DTL>. Lane, Charles . "California's '3-Strikes' Law Upheld." Fairness.com. 06 MAR. 2003 <http://www.fairness.com/resources/on...ce_id=5377>. Reynolds, Mike . Three Strikes And You're Out: Stop Repeat Offenders. Threestrikes.org. 04 Nov. 2004 <http://www.threestrikes.org/>. Sperling, Godfrey. Adjusting 'Three Strikes' Law. CSMonitor.com. 08 Jun. 2004 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0608/p08s03-comv.html>. Carroll, Stephen . "Rand.org." California's Three Strikes Law. Rand Research. 30 Aug. 2002 <hhttp://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB4009/RB4009.word.html>. _______________________________ Lemme know if any errors are sticking out in that. I didn't really proofread it. -Ugly Bastard