| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "STRIKES MANDATORY SENTENCING LAW": |
|
|
The Three Strikes Mandatory Sentencing Law, 2004.
This paper reviews arguments against the efficacy of the three strikes mandatory sentencing law.
1,630 words (approx. 6.5 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that three strikes legislation mandates specific consequences when someone is classified as a habitual offender by having three strikes, convictions for a serious or violent felony crime. The author points out that the ideology behind three strikes laws is that criminals are guided by the expected utility principle theory, which states that the costs of their crime outweigh the benefits. The paper relates that the general goal of a three strikes law is to make punishment severe for repeat offenders in hopes that this will deter them from committing additional crimes and that, if they still choose to commit crimes, locking them up for 25 years to life is an effective means of incapacitation. The author underscores that the deterrence ability of three strikes laws is not accepted by many researchers and that this law has numerous negative side effects including increased homicide rates and prison overcrowding.
From the Paper
"The federal version of the three strikes law is the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, also known as the Federal Crime Bill, which was enacted by Congress in 1994. According to Schichor, the act mandates life in prison for criminals convicted of three violent felonies or drug offenses if the third conviction is a federal crime. In addition to the federal law, in a three year span from 1993 to 1996, 25 states adopted their own three strikes laws. Schichor (1997) believes this shift in criminal justice policy focuses more on "controlling aggregates instead of individual offenders" by sorting criminals into groups such as high rate offender and career criminal."
| |
|
Gun Laws and Mandatory Sentencing, 2006.
An analysis of the effect that the 10-20-life law in Florida will have on gun crimes.
5,248 words (approx. 21.0 pages), 48 sources, MLA, $ 130.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses gun laws in Florida, particularly the 10-20-life law that has been passed. The research hypothesizes that juvenile offenders within Alachua county will be unaffected by the 10-20-life advertising campaigns and that the majority of youth offenders surveyed will not grasp the severity of punishments for crimes committed with guns.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Literature Review
From the Paper
"While mandatory minimum sentences, such as Florida's 10-20-life law, are currently popular across the nation that has not always been the case. Such policies first were put into practice in the 1950s and after a substantial period when they fell out of favor came back into style in the 1980s (Yates, 2001). The motivation for most of these laws has been based on the desire of politicians, prosecutors and the general public to be 'tough on crime.' Mandatory minimum sentencing had its true rebirth in 1984, when Congress passed the "Sentencing Reform Act" to establish the U.S. Sentencing Commission (H.R. 6428) and followed that with the passage of the "Armed Career Criminal Act." That law established mandatory 15-year prison sentences for certain armed offenses (U.S.C. 3551)."
| |
|
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, 2002.
An examination of the principles behind mandatory minimum sentencing.
989 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the issues concerning mandatory minimum sentencing, created by politicians convinced that crime was out of control. It looks at how the public wanted something done and that one aspect of the problem was that judges were exercising too much discretion and not sending enough people to prison for a long enough period of time. It discusses how mandatory minimum sentencing began as a tool in the drug war in 1986 when House Speaker Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill Jr. ordered his Democratic committee chairmen to produce a crime bill that toughened penalties on drug dealers.
From the Paper
"There is considerable public support for the idea that criminals need to be given harsher punishment and almost none for the idea that some other means should be taken to reduce crime. Those concerned about crime can point to a number of statistical studies to show that crime is increasing and is not being punished at the level the public would prefer. A National Punishment Survey conducted by the Population and Society Research Center at Bowling Green State University in 1987 showed that the public recommends prison sentences for a variety of violent and other serious crimes that would be approximately three times longer than offenders actually serve."
| |
|
Mandatory Sentencing, 2004.
A discussion of mandatory sentencing, its effect on the criminals and society in general.
3,653 words (approx. 14.6 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 101.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper deals with the mandatory sentencing guidelines and how they relate to the overcrowding that is taking place in prisons today. There is a distinct correlation between these two issues, which must be explored in order to determine what should be done about it and how the overcrowding in prisons can be alleviated, while still ensuring that criminals are punished according to the severity of their crimes. The first section includes a literature review, where seven scholarly sources are looked at in order to discuss the problems that come from prison overcrowding and what the sentencing guidelines mean for this.
From the Paper
"Naturally, the government is desirous of removing drug dealers and other criminals from the streets and undercover operations are often undertaken in the war on drugs in order to remove many of these undesirable individuals from society (Heaney, 161). Unfortunately, this necessitates undercover operations and there is often an amount of discretionary power that is just considered to be enormous when looked at realistically (Heaney, 161). Government agents have complete and total control over how long a particular drug operation lasts, who is targeted for it, and the amount of drugs that may or may not be involved in a particular transaction (Heaney, 161). Because this level of authority is so very high there is a strong risk of abusing it."
| |
|
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, 2004.
This paper examines the need for politicians to get tough on crime.
2,917 words (approx. 11.7 pages), 16 sources, MLA, $ 86.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer of this paper suggests that the solution to the problem of increased crime statistics is to do away with mandatory minimum sentencing and promote get-tough-on-crime measures by focusing on violent crime. The paper discusses how evidence laws should be tightened in cases of ?conspiracy? to prevent the abuse of the system and rewarding upper-level dealers at the expense of the low-level dealer or associate. People should also be made aware of the reality of mandatory minimum sentencing.
From the Paper
"One hears a lot of talk nowadays about how politicians are getting tough on crime. The national prison population as a percentage of the total population is in America higher than in any other country. Currently about 2 million people are in jail. 10% of all men in America, and a third of all black men, will be incarcerated at some point. To defeat this trend, states such as Oregon often consider ?get soft on crime? measures that cut back sentencing for serious offenders such as murderers and rapists. We regularly hear of murderers and psychotic child molesters serving only a couple years before being released. Murders, we are told, have to be released after only five or ten years because there simply isn?t enough room to hold all of them. The average sentence served (in 1995) for rape and homicide was between five and six years; more minor crimes like robbery averaged under four years. So why are our jails so full, and are there really that many murderers? The answer, of course, lies in the fact that well over a third of the prison population consists of non-violent drug offenders serving minimum sentences. For example, the mandatory minimum sentence for ?conspiracy? to sell drugs (even if no drugs were ever directly found on the offender) is ten or twenty years depending on the amount of drugs alleged to be involved. Unlike other categories of crime, since conspiracy is a crime of intention rather than commission, no physical evidence is necessary and hear-say allegations are sufficient for conviction. Serving minimum sentences without parole, the average drug offender will stay in prison twice as long as the average murderer. Minimum mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenders impose draconian sentences on non-violent low-level offenders, filling the jails and creating pressure to release violent offenders, while removing power of discretion from judges to assure that the crime and sentence are in proportion."
| |
|
Mandatory Sentencing in Australia, 2002.
A look at the history of manadatory sentencing in Australia.
2,650 words (approx. 10.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 97.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper gives an account of the history of mandatory sentencing in Australia. The paper also explains what lessons can be learned from this history.
| |
|
Canadian Mandatory Minimum Sentences, 2007.
This paper discuses the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory minimum sentences (MMS) in Canada.
910 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that mandatory minimum sentencing (MMS) rests on aims of deterrence and of incapacitation so that a lawbreaker, who is likely to repeat an offense, is removed as a risk to the public. The author points out that critics of the criminal justice system indicate that, without MMS, immense discrepancies regarding punishment assigned for the same offenses by different parties would exist. The paper also relates that, under MMS, a judge, who is able to discern an irregular circumstance related to a crime, is no longer free to adjust what he or she hands down to an offender. The author concludes that, in Canada, at present, perhaps the strongest argument against MMS is the inadequacy of prison resources and community support services, which would be overloaded because MMS would involve more offenders being assigned to prisons.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Minimum Sentencing in Canada
Defects in Minimum Sentencing
Concluding Remarks
From the Paper
"Gabor & Crutcher noted how the existence of minimum penalties for an array of crimes to an extent simplifies court proceedings towards reduced court costs, but that these are more than realized in the prison system where many timeservers now incarcerated for minimum sentences. Another factor to be kept in mind is the mentality of a serious offender who may not resent serving prison time as much as he or she may be more adverse to community sentences involving instructions, conditions and probation supervision."
| |
|
Mandatory Minimum Sentences., 2002.
Questions whether mandatory minimum sentences help or hinder the justice system.
2,150 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for certain criminal offenses and whether these guidelines help or hinder justice.
| |
|
"Three Strikes" Laws, 2005.
This paper maintains that "Three strikes and you're out" mandatory sentence laws do not reduce the crime rate.
2,034 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper contends that "three strikes and you're out" mandatory sentence laws do not reduce the crime rate. The paper discusses the reasons for the three strikes legislation, and explains how it works. The paper discusses that there is lack of evidence to show it reduces the crime rate.
From the Paper
""Three Strikes and You're Out" crime laws which are now in effect in almost all states in the U S are essentially laws that mandate that an individual who commits three of a certain group of felonies receives a mandatory prison sentence ranging from years to life. Mauer Walker's Proposition states succinctly that three strikes and you're out laws are a terrible crime policy. In this essay, arguments supporting Walker's Proposition will be advanced."
| |
|
California's Three-Strikes Law, 2002.
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.
994 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
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."
| |
|
The ?3-Strikes? Law, 2004.
This paper argues against California?s "3-strikes law", which attempts to stop repeat criminals by sentencing them to mandatory life in jail after their third offense.
1,095 words (approx. 4.4 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 38.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the 3-strikes law has created a dynamic within the criminal justice system that seeks to punish minor offenses, while shifting focus away from violent offenders. The author points out that, unlike other 3-strikes laws around the country, California?s is unique in that it permits a lifetime sentence for any third offense, even one that is non-violent by nature, includes juvenile adjudications of those 16 and 17 years of age, and does not provide a ?wash-out? period for long periods of time between offenses. The paper concludes that billions of dollars, nationally, have been thrown towards the 3-strikes legislation, but the intent of the law, to reduced crime, has not necessarily been achieved.
From the Paper
"Finally, the 3-strikes rule is unfair in its application. Many argue criminal justice systems throughout the United States are discriminatory, but California?s is blatantly so. The 3-strike law has had its most dramatic effect on California?s African American population. While only 7% of the state?s population is African American, more than 40% make up those convicted under the 3-strike law. Plus, the majority of offenses targeted by the law (robbery, possession of drugs, ect.) are offenses more commonly performed by minority and underrepresented groups."
| |
|
The Three Strikes Law, 2007.
An argument supporting the use of the three strikes law.
838 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 29.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the three strikes law whereby a third felony conviction brings a mandatory sentence with no parole possible for a long period of time. The paper explains that critics of the three strikes law most frequently oppose it because the law allows for a non-violent third strike, has high costs and means an increase in the prison population. The writer contends that what critics should really be concerned about is the high rate of repeat offenders, the high cost of crime and the desirability of letting violent offenders roam free versus sit in prison. The writer admits that prison populations have increased and there are more elderly prisoners. The writer maintains that this means that the three strikes law is meeting its objective of finally putting the guilty where they belong and for a very long time.
From the Paper
"Unfortunately, it seems nearly impossible to avoid becoming a victim of crime in our country. Personally, I have had my car stolen and seriously damaged and my apartment broken into with items of high emotional value taken from me. And, who hasn't experience fear at some time or other when they are walking down the street minding their own business only to be intimidated by some bully or thug? Thus, it's extraordinarily frustrating to see the same individuals churn through the justice system only to commit the same or worse acts time after time. California, one of the first implementers of the three strikes laws, has a sixty percent recidivism rate for some of its most serious crimes."
| |
|
California?s "Three-Strikes Law", 2002.
The paper analyzes the "Three-Strikes Law" using two recent cases, Ewing vs. California and Lockyer vs. Andrade.
914 words (approx. 3.7 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the background to the creation of the three-strikes law, which imposes heavy mandatory sentences on persons convicted for the third time of a felony. The paper examines whether the law exhibits adequate proportionality in applying third-strike sentences.
It also discusses the constitutionality of the law and arguments put forward by opponents to the law.
From the Paper
"Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O?Connor?s opinion in Ewing v. California stressed that courts should not interfere with decisions by state legislatures concerning criminal sentencing policies (Cahill, 2003). In this case, the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of a 25-year sentence against Gary Albert Ewing, whose third-strike sentence was stealing three golf clubs, valued at $1200, from a store."
| |
|
Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet Laws, 2003.
A discussion of mandatory helmet laws from a public health perspective.
1,380 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the issue of mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists as a health policy issue. The paper begins with an overview of the issue, followed by an analysis of the issue in several contexts. The paper focuses on the importance of this health safety issue for professional nursing and offers strategy recommendations for the nurses.
| |
|
Federal Drug Offenders' Sentencing Guidelines, 2005.
This paper argues against mandatory minimum sentencing federal guidelines for drug offenders.
2,455 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 21 sources, MLA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the high federal prison rate, resulting in the overcrowding of federal prisons, is caused by the long, unjust and ineffective sentences required by the federal mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. The author points out that re-instituting federal parole or instituting programs similar to the programs of the state drug courts would help reconcile the issue of the ever increasing prison population and the related ever increasing cost. The paper recommends federal parole, which would allow inmates to be released from prison earlier than their imposed sentence with very specific rules to abide-by overseen by a parole officer, and required drug treatment for addicts.
From the Paper
"Drug laws were first enacted in 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics Act, which taxed narcotics and required those who dispensed drugs to obtain a license. The Harrison Narcotics Act specifically targeted the growing number of opiate addicts in the United States after the Civil War. The sale of opium and cocaine were regulated, and later the prohibition of production and importation of heroin were all included in this Act. In 1937, marijuana was characterized as a narcotic, and was taxed and legislated by the Marijuana Tax Act. The Narcotics Control Act of 1956 introduced the first law requiring mandatory prison sentences for using and selling illegal substances."
|
|
|
