An examination of the pros and cons of California's Three-Strikes law - which imposes heavy mandatory sentences on persons convicted for the third time of a felony.
This paper discusses why the California law is slightly different from other states which uphold the Three-Strikes law - California law allows prosecutors to count classified misdemeanors as felonies for purposes of applying third-strike sentences. This paper discusses how, in many cases, the question of whether the law exhibits adequate proportionality is a major aspect of applying third-strike sentences.
From the Paper:
"Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold long-term sentences for two men who were convicted under California's three-strikes law (Mears, 2003). The decisions for the two cases, Ewing v. California and Lockyer v. Andrade, increased the likelihood that future challenges to the three-strikes law will have to be made in the legislatures rather than the courts.
California's three-strikes law came about when the state's voters approved Proposition 184 in 1994 after 12-year-old Polly Klaas was kidnapped, raped and murdered by Richard Allen Davis, a man who was serving parole at the time of the crime. Davis had formerly been convicted of kidnapping, assault and burglary but only served half of his sentence. If he had served his full sentence, proponents of the law argued, Klaas would have been safe."
California's Three-Strikes Law (2012, February 09). Retrieved February 13, 2012, from http://www.academon.com/Essay-California's-Three-Strikes-Law/28851
You will be able to download, read and edit this file once you buy this document
Shopping Cart
Currency:
Published by:
capital writers
Publisher Since:
Apr 29, 2002
Writers that work at our organization must all be college educated and have a professional background. They must have extensive writing experience and demonstrate top quality writing and research skills.