three strikes law has sparked major controversy since 1990. Does it work correctly as intended? Does it unfairly punish repeat offenders petty? Is it really necessary or can be the decision of the judge? Three strikes law now in force 13 years. It came into existence because of two gruesome crimes: 12-year-old Polly Klass was abducted and murdered by a parolee and murder of 18-year-old Kimber Reynolds. Mike Reynolds is the original people, "laughed off" measure when it was first brought them in 1993, but after the Klass case, "you got it on board or you're out of the way"
the period of the law in force, in fact he sent thousands of criminals, rapists and other violent criminals in prison for at least 25 years of age, but it also has slammed the prison door on many minor offenders after committing serious crimes before. California (CA) introduced legislation in 1993 after 72 percent of voters voted in favor of 184th The initiative proposes to have the title three strikes and 'you're out' pertaining to life imprisonment after three offenses were committed. The law states that anyone who has committed two serious offenses or violent, or stroke, and was convicted for any third offense will get a mandatory 25 years-to-life without parole sentence with crimes carrying. Only the prosecutor has discretion over whether or not a third offense should be considered a strike. It is possible for defendants charged and convicted with two-thirds of impact in one case, which means that the defendant will be given two separate sentences by working in a row (instead of 25 years will now be a criminal sentenced to 50 years in prison). It is also possible for a defendant to receive the second and third or first strike and second strike from one criminal offense.
California has set the standard for the rest of the country to follow. However, California law is tailored to the unique. This requires you convicted a second serious or violent crime, the criminal gets double time than that obtained for the first conviction. So, if he / she is convicted of another rape and served six years for rape, first, he will serve a minimum of twelve for the second uvjerenje.Treći strike could be any crime until the criminal two previous serious or violent criminal djela.Treći strike carries a mandatory 25 years to life in prison on top of what they have committed a crime carries. In these cases, it may not be the same offense as they both are considered violent or serious offenses. Some of these crimes are. Murder, rape, murder, serious assault, kidnapping of the state, continuous sexual abuse of a child, penetration by foreign object, and any criminal offense that carries a life or death sentence
Crime in California after the first six years of existence, three strikes fell 41 percent, compared with 22 per cent cut in national razini.Zakon only carries the effect if all crimes were committed in the same state. Opponents say California law the crime rate began to decline in late 1991, and continued down the same rate after the law was in force. Also, in places like San Francisco, where prosecutors carry out the law less than any other urban counties, the crime rate decreased more than three times as much in Sacramento County, where the law uses almost 12 times češće.Kritičar law says prosecutors have not charged more than one in ten of potential third-choice striker, and is mainly used as a permissive law on the crime and set aside a settlement more difficult. If three strikes and you really factor in the county who have the right to use the most will experience the largest drop in crime rates, but crime rates have fallen at higher rates in counties that use the law less rare.
7 November, 2000, 60 percent of California voters support the amendments to the statute (offered in the proposal 36), which scaled back the law providing for drug treatment instead of prison life for the majority of those convicted of drug possession. 2nd Nov. 2004, voters rejected an amendment (offered the suggestion 66) that would require third offense will be classified as "violent and / or seriously. Nearly 5.5 million voters (47.3 percent) voted in favor of the proposal, or 66, but 6, 2 million voters (52.7 percent) voted no.
After three attacks in the first law was passed, the perpetrators have been prosecuted for many low-level crimes in order to prove that the legislators are going to be tough on crime, and that the law was serious. Since 1996, the number of life sentences given dropped significantly, so the number of large fines. Therefore, the prison rate is reduced, and since 1996 has declined nearly every year. This decline can be attributed to the higher selectivity of the plaintiffs, the general decline in crime, or the fact that many repeat offenders are now behind bars, but can not commit the crime.
More than half of those convicted of crimes of violence in large urban areas between 1990 and 2002 had prior convictions. Nearly 4 out of 10, has some type of prior offense of conviction, while an additional 18 percent had a prior misdemeanor conviction. 15 percent were guilty of prior violent - murder, rape, robbery and assault. Rapists are the least likely to have prior convictions. When it comes to judge the cases, the most violent offenders, 88 percent admit his guilt. Of these 59 percent of perpetrators were represented by public defender, who works for the state. California Paroles 125,000 inmates, and 71 percent were back in prison within 18 months. So, putting the three strikes law, which required these career criminals off these streets and studies say that saving two million people from becoming victims. Almost all violent offenders were male, 91 percent and 41 percent were black.
three strikes law seems unjustified to punish the other races more often then whites. African American strike 12 times in comparison to whites. This rate is remarkable considering that 28 percent of people who are in prison are white, while 29 percent were black. Latinos 78 percent more likely to strike, then whites, and only outnumber white in jail 37 percent compared to 28 percent.
In 1994, opponents of the law of three attacks made five predictions on the effects of the nation's toughest crime law. First, the California prison population would double in five years, reaching 250,000, but in fact, the prison population has remained constant. Before the law, in California's prison population expanded 400 percent. Second, California should build 20 new prisons. Ten years later, no new prisons were built in the decade before the law, California has built 19 new prisons. Third, crime reduction will be minimal at best. California has seen the longest and the biggest drop in crime in the ten years since records began being recorded. California crime has fallen and its population grew by one-third of what was in 1993. Fourth, more courts will be required due to blockage of the defendants taking their cases run, but in fact no new judges were needed. In the end, there will be more deaths than police officers to catch more desperate criminals. During the eight years before the law, 45 officers were killed in the line of duty, while in the first eight years after the law, 50 were killed in the line of duty. Either pure coincidence or as a result of the three strikes law, one of the five predictions for those holding oppositional stance, showed točno.Smrt officers was increased, but only marginally.
of crime in California, because the three strikes law was passed, declined to a record pace. Crime is down more than twice the rate of the nation. Supporters of the law argue that people are realizing if you do not straighten up they will go to jail for a long time. While protesters say the crime in the nation is declining, and so California has 30 million people, more than double the next state, New York, which has about 15 million people, plays a major role on what happens to the nation crime rate. In the first five years of law, crime dropped 32.7 percent. Not only is the trend continued in years since, she fell at higher prices. Across the nation, the crime rate experienced only 13 percent and reduce the need to force a drastic decline in California. The crime rate continues to fall at the move, even though California's population grew by one third. Crime in California went from a higher national rate lower than the national rate.
three strikes law of California wanted to target the most violent offenders, but ironically, the sentence nonviolent outnumber violent sentences two to one. Nearly 65 percent of those convicted for a second or third strikes were served in prison for nonviolent crimes. More than 600 third strikers serving 25-to-life for drug possession, a number that is greater than the number of third-strikers in prison for second-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon and rape combined. Only two ex-offenders are serving 25 years to life for petty theft ten years ago. This number jumped to 354 in 2002. There are more than 42,000 inmates serving three strikes sentence. This number is a quarter of total zatvorenika.Trošak their imprisonment will be eight billion more than it would be if the three strikes law was never passed. Nearly five billion will be spent on non-violent offenders, but remember to be convicted under three strikes law, a criminal must have two prior violent or serious crimes. Many prisons are filling up with many lower level drug dealers and petty offenders. Price of California and every state around $ 35,000 per prisoner per year. In addition to the cost of imprisonment, employees must be paid. California state budget, though, has doubled, and the crime rate has been cut in half.
the United States Supreme Court continues to stand by the law. 5th March 2003, the Court held 5-4 vote that the three strikes sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On that day the court upheld the law two or three attacks beliefs. Since California passed a law in 1993, 26 states have adopted or adapted some form of three assault law.
Critics have argued that the law violates the more threatened. Most judges do not take this seriously. In most U.S. courts, it is accepted that the defendants were not in danger of even more threatened because they are retired or punished again for the same set of facts from previous convictions. The existence of prior convictions used as evidence of defendant's character in order to enhance the penalty for third conviction. They also have upheld the constitutionality of using the fact of previous convictions as a factor in determining the severity of the penalty.
Since the implementation of three attacks law for fifteen years, significant changes have occurred. Most of these changes proved to be useful in society. However, others remain strongly opposed, because the few exceptions where the criminal face extended prison for nonviolent zločine.Vrhovni Court and the voting public tends to believe strongly used in cases where the negative effect of the law. For years to come this topic will be discussed and changed.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar