California's Three-Strikes Law
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.
# 28851 | 994 words | 2 sources | MLA | 2002 |
Published on Jul 09, 2003 in Political Science (State and Local Politics) , Criminology (Criminal Justice and Corrections)
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
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."
Cite this Essay:
California's Three-Strikes Law (2003, July 09) Retrieved July 02, 2020, from https://www.academon.com/essay/california-three-strikes-law-28851/
"California's Three-Strikes Law" 09 July 2003. Web. 02 July. 2020. <https://www.academon.com/essay/california-three-strikes-law-28851/>