criminal justice system

Assignment 2
A major goal of the criminal justice system is crime control. An important factor in achieving crime control is implementing policies that effectively address crime-related issues (Mallicoat, 2013). During the 1990s, the public began to demand that state and federal officials take action to get criminals off the streets. Two cases, in particular, the murders of Kimber Reynolds and Polly Klaas, had galvanized the public. The offenders in both cases had been out on parole at the time. This fact enraged both the public and policymakers (Heyer, 2012). Policymakers responded by enacting a recidivist law, commonly known as the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law (Baran, 2014; Datta, 2017; Heyer, 2012; Mallicoat, 2013; Sutton, 2013). The foundation for the three-strikes laws was created through a political process (Mallicoat, 2013).
According to Mallicoat (2013, legislators and politicians go through six steps when developing a new policy: identifying the problem, setting the goals of the policy; determining the agenda of the policy, adopting the policy, implementing the policy, and evaluating the policy. The first step in the process, identifying the problem, had already occurred. The level of crime was increasing, and violent offenders were free to commit more crimes. Policy-makers, along with interested citizens, then identified the goals of the new policy: incapacitation and deterrence. The main goal of the policy was to remove repeat offenders from society. Repeat offenders would be incarcerated for longer periods, which would incapacitate the offender. As a result, the offenders could not commit more crimes. The threat of longer sentences would also act as a deterrent. If criminals knew that they would receive longer sentences, they would become less likely to commit a crime (Baran, 2014; Datta, 2017; Heyer, 2012; Mallicoat, 2013; Romano, 2010; Sutton, 2013). Next, policymakers debated the aspects of the new law and the elements that should be included. To meet the goals of incapacitation and deterrence, policymakers determined that longer sentences for subsequent offenses were necessary, as well as the denial of parole for three-time offenders. After identifying the goals, the three-strikes policies were drafted and adopted (Mallicoat, 2013). Three strikes legislation was then implemented at the state (Baran, 2014; Datta, 2017; Heyer, 2012; Mallicoat, 2013; Sutton, 2013) and federal level (Heyer, 2012; Mallicoat, 2013). Evaluation, the final step, is ongoing. Three strikes laws have been reformed in several states since implementation (Baran, 2014; Mallicoat, 2013), and efforts at reform continue (Romano, 2010). The three-strikes law in California, in particular, has been the target of reform efforts (Datta, 2017; Heyer, 2012; Mallicoat, 2013; Romano, 2010; Sutton, 2013). After much evaluation, concerns have been raised over the effectiveness of the law in achieving the goals of reducing recidivism and deterring future criminal acts (Datta, 2017; Mallicoat, 2013; Sutton, 2013). Some researchers suggest that not only are the laws ineffective as a crime control measure but that the laws are creating additional problems. For example, some believe that three-strike laws have increased the issue of prison overcrowding (Datta, 2017; Mallicoat, 2013). Others assert that three-strike policies are only symbolic and were passed to appease public opinion. Three strike laws were enacted to show that public officials were tough on crime, but in reality, the laws do not reduce or deter crime (Sutton, 2013). The law has also been challenged on constitutional grounds. Numerous cases have been brought before the Supreme Court based on the premise that three-strike laws are a violation of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (Romano, 2010). The sentencing mandates are the primary focus and are a common element in three-strikes laws.
While three-strike laws have been enforced mostly at the state level, Congress and the federal government have also taken an active role. After the public demand for tougher laws, Congress drafted and approved a federal version of the three-strikes law. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1994, also called the Comprehensive Crime Control Act (CCCA), targets violent felons who commit certain federal crimes, such as an armed bank robbery. The CCCA restructured sentencing in federal cases and eliminated parole at the federal level (Datta, 2017; Mallicoat, 2013).
At the state level, the laws vary. Each state has different requirements regarding previous convictions and length of sentence (Datta, 2017; Mallicoat, 2013; Sutton, 2013). For example, California (Datta, 2017; Heyer, 2012; Mallicoat, 2013; Romano, 2010; Sutton, 2013) and Georgia (Heyer, 2012) were broader in scope than laws enacted in the state of Washington (Datta, 2017; Heyer, 2012). Unlike other states, in California, the third strike does not have to be serious or violent. The only requirement is that the offense is a felony (Datta, 2017; Heyer, 2012). However, the laws contain a basic sentencing structure. First, offenders must have a previous conviction for a felony offense. The first offense must be considered serious or violent in nature. Second, sentencing for the second and third strikes is mandatory. The length of the sentence for each additional strike is also considerably longer than the sentence for the first strike. Lastly, after the third offense, the laws stipulate that the offender cannot be given parole (Datta, 2017; Mallicoat, 2013; Sutton, 2013). A notable exception to the sentencing structure is the three strikes law in Georgia. Most cases in Georgia do require a third offense, but the Georgia legislature stipulated that criminals who commit particularly heinous crimes should be punished after only two offenses (Datta, 2017).