Monday, May 11, 2009

Abolishing the Three Strikes Law



Following Richard Allen Davis’s conviction for sexually abusing and murdering Polly Klass in the late 1970’s, the Three Strikes Law was installed for violent criminals. This law provided a quick fix for individuals looking to attain justice for their family members, but as time progressed, the law proved to be a problem for the justice system and offenders. There are many reasons why the Three Strikes Law should be abolished and legislation should take a serious look at how this law is affecting our criminals and what types of crimes are putting them away for life.
According to BalancedPolitics.org, the main reasons why the Three Strikes Law should be abolished consists of the ideas that 1.) The law destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge. 2.) It is unjust in certain conditions (victimless crimes, young criminals, etc.) 3.) Criminals often plea bargain their first two convictions. 4.) It is a violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. 5.) An arrest of someone with two convictions almost guarantees the cost and time of a trial. Incidentally, the law adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive prison system. These are all viable reasons as to why the Three Strikes Law should be abolished.
With individuals being sentenced to life in prison because of petty crimes that tack on to their previous two felonies, correctional facilities are increasingly being over-populated with these non-violent criminals. Because of the reasons listed above, I feel that the installation of the Three Strikes Law was very unjust and that legislature needs to figure out another system to sentence the criminals in America.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, April 24, 2009

Prison Overcrowding: Time for New Policies




During the last quarter century or so, the criminal justice system has been plagued by the issue of prison overcrowding. This issue is greatly correlated with the “tough on crime” policies that legislature has established in recent years. Because of these policies, more men and women are being sent to prisons which ultimately end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars every year. Many feel that these tough on crime policies such as mandatory minimum sentencing laws and certain drug laws should be altered in more ways than one.
Because our criminal justice system has established laws such as that of determinate sentencing, many men and women are sent to prison with a minimum amount of years to serve, sometimes for crimes that aren’t very serious. For example, when the crack-powder cocaine law was created, thousands of African American men and women were sent to prison for a fixed amount of years due to the mandatory sentencing laws for possession of crack cocaine. Much like anything else, the war on drugs has been the basis for many tough on crime advocates.
Incidentally, many of these get tough on crime schemes that legislature has established during the last twenty-five years affects our correctional systems throughout the United States. With almost double the capacity in just about every correctional facility in California alone, many men and women are forced to relinquish the limited amount of freedom that they possess while incarcerated.
If our legislature doesn’t figure out a way to modify our current sentencing policies and formulate better ways of accommodating those who are currently incarcerated, our criminal justice system will continue to be plagued with this enormous financial issue. I feel we need to assemble more effective re-entry programs and put more money into rehabilitation programs rather than to our correctional systems.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, April 10, 2009

Injustice: Shifts in Criminal Justice Sentencing



The topic of sentencing in the criminal justice system is an ongoing dilemma that is caused by the constant paradigm shifts in philosophy and practice by the police and court systems, which eventually affects the corrections system. Throughout the last one-hundred years or so, the criminal justice system has experienced drastic changes in sentencing. I believe that the increase in minority rates in America, the “war on drugs,” and ultimately heavier caseloads for courtroom workgroups have been a few of the many reasons that the criminal justice system in America has seen such drastic paradigm shifts in philosophy and practice in relation to sentencing.
In the area of policing, many factors can be linked to the reason why arrest rates continue to be high in our country, today. One factor in general, that I believe is the most plausible, is that the high arrest rates are due to the increase of our minority population. According to a Uniform Crime Report done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, non-white arrests account for more than double the arrests of a white citizen. The most astonishing fact about this is that the white population is much higher than that of any other race. I believe that the paradigm shift results from profound police action towards minority groups in our society.
When discussing the court’s take on the sentencing shifts, the problem of higher arrest rates in America plays a huge role for the courtroom workgroups. In years past, the court system seemed to be more steady and persistent when going through its caseloads. With the rise of arrest rates, debatably caused by the “war on drugs,” the courtroom workgroups have much heavier caseloads. Because of this, assembly-line justice tends to occur and more people are sanctioned with determinate sentencing, which eventually lands them in the corrections system with a fixed amount of years to serve.
I believe that some changes need to be done in order for our criminal justice system to work properly and sentence individuals to their correct terms instead of just throwing them in jail or prison. Just because more crimes are being committed today, does not mean that our justice system should be uncaring and show injustice like they have been in recent years past.
Posted by at No comments:

The Truth About Racial Inequality


Not only does racial inequality occur out on the streets and during traffic stops, it also occurs in court rooms when dealing with sentencing, adjudication, arrest, and punishment. I do not believe that there are any implications of our current justice policy for race and class because it states in our constitution that all men are created equal and that race should not be a deciding factor. By the laws of the United States, it is illegal to have race as a factor so therefore, there should be no way that a justice policy ever be associated with race or class.
I feel that racial inequality plays an important role in the United States justice system. As much as law enforcement agencies hate to admit it, racial profiling occurs, and individuals of various minority groups are constantly being harassed by officers of the law. For instance, in the documentary, The Farm, an inmate who had been incarcerated for the past twenty-five years due to rape charges, was denied parole, even when all the evidence of the crime favored the inmate. The inmate on death row was in fact, an african american male.
Every day minorities are discriminated against throughout our entire justice system. Whether it's on the streets or in the courtrooms, individuals across the nation are being treated with inequality. This is a huge problem that needs to be recognized, immediately.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, March 20, 2009

Capital Punishment: Continuing to Fight for Execution




















In an ongoing debate, the controversy regarding capital punishment continues to be a significant issue for legislature in the State of California. Although there are many reasons as to why the death penalty should be abolished, various points of the argument suggest that it is essential to the justice system.
Due to the overflow of inmates in our correctional facilities, including those who are on death row, it is imperative that our state carry out more executions in order to not only minimize the amount of inmates in our corrections system, but to serve the justice that is deserve.
According to BalancedPolitics.org, several other points also suggest that the death penalty be instituted. 1) The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. 2) It creates another form of crime deterrent. 3) Justice is better served. 4) Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. 5) It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. 6) DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. 7) Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. 8) It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system.
Although these points have greatly supported the pro-capital punishment position, great debate will continue to transpire in the legislature.

Posted by at 1 comment:

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Marijuana Legalization: Just Adding To The Problem?


With the economic hardships that are persistent in our culture today, it is easy to see why drugs, much like that of marijuana is so heavily implemented as an everyday part of life for some individuals. Much debate has risen regarding the legalization of marijuana in our country, today. Many people believe that if it were legalized, not only would the war on drugs may be a little less severe, but less crime would also be committed. These are two fairly naïve points of view that are linked to the legalization of marijuana in our country.
According to http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm, there are several significant factors that address the reasons why marijuana should not be legalized. 1) Marijuana is a gateway drug to many other and often lethal drugs such as crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and PCP. 2) The dangers of “stoned driving” would be heavily increased. Because marijuana impairs a driver’s senses, it can be just as dangerous and driving under the influence. 3) Drug usage is morally wrong, plain and simple. 4) If marijuana were legalized, the chances of falling into children’s hands would be greatly increased, thus starting drug usage at earlier ages than current statistics show. 5) Physical damages would be done to not only users but for by-standers who come into contact with the drug.
In summation, it is fairly easy to distinguish the negative aspects of marijuana legalization from the positives. If marijuana were to be legalized, I believe the ethical character of our country would be forever tainted. Not only would it be giving individuals the power to think and act at such impairment, but it would set a terrible example for the youth of our nation. Children are already beginning to experiment with drugs at such a young age; we don’t need to be giving them the freedom and authorization to do engage in such a terrible habit.
Posted by at No comments:

Protection Against Gun Control




With so many advances in technology and the array of new and innovated ways to commit crime, the idea of gun violence has seemed like it would have eluded our society by now. But as statistics show, crimes committed with firearms are still continuing to decline. Since the early nineties, the amount of incidents related to firearms has been divided in half. In 1994, the number of firearm incidents in America was up to 1,060,800. In 2005, that same category amounted to just 419,640 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.htm).
In our Constitution, the 2nd Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms. With this being instituted by our legislation centuries ago, we have the right to have firearms accessible in our closed quarters. Aside from the fact that we are awarded the right to possess a firearm, comes the idea of whether this law should change due to the amount of crime in our society. That question can be answered by solely viewing the statistics stated above. Many citizens in America feel that gun ownership causes crime rates including homicide, robbery, rape, and other crimes to increase. Although that may seem logical, we as a nation have to understand who these weapons are being distributed to.
Much debate can be supported by the idea that young children are getting a hold of these firearms and committing terrible acts with them including school shootings and suicide, but the main focus of this topic is whether gun ownership prevents homicides, robbery, rape, and other crimes. With the economic hardships that citizens in America are going through today, it is imperative that firearms be available for protection, alone.
Either way, firearms in this country are unavoidably accessible. If we want to ensure the safety of the everyday citizen in America, we need to make sure that firearms are available for protection. With this said, I believe that the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution should remain virtually untainted by legislation so that individuals can continue to have self-protection from those who mean the worst in our society.
Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)