three strikes law is a strict mandatory life sentence

tether strikes honorfulness is a strict mandatory look sentenceThese umbrages accept murder, robbery in which a deadly weapon was used, rape, or burglary. Differing opinions arouse that troika strikes justness is unfair and unjust be accept the law excessively affects Afri asshole the Statesn and Latino men who have a higher delegation throughout the wrong justice frame. Others suggest that the terce strikes law violates the eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights because the law is unjust when convicted of a minor offense relieve count as a strike. I believe the cardinal strikes law deters hatred and future cruel conduct because it assembles the thought of facing laborious consequences.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKThe three strikes law can be vanquish understood within the neoclassical theoretical framework. The theoretical framework is a direct approach to policy fashioning for the prevention and control of crime. It focuses on policies rather than crime causation and less concerned with finding causes of crime, a ache with finding what deters future criminal behavior. The neoclassical theoretical framework can be coupled with the specific and ecumenic deterrence theory. The specific deterrence theory emphasizes a point on the individual itself. The theory explains the despair of criminal behavior from future criminal deeds by understanding the consequences. world(a) deterrence theory concent grades on the prevention of crime by forge examples of distinguish criminal behavior. It exercises the public view to deter different individuals from send outting the uniform crime. The understand is use to restrain others from perpetrating the same criminal acts.Schafers Argument 3 Strikes as DeterrenceThe concept of deterrence is divided into two categories general deterrence and specific. General deterrence takes place when say-so offenders identify the consequences of other peoples actions and decide not to follow into their footsteps. Specific deterrence is triggered when offenders learn from their past. Schafer believes the three strikes laws often are seen as the answer to crime problems in America because it reduces crime either by throwing offenders in jail or deterring potential offenders from applyting crimes. (p311)Schafer argues that three strikes law is an effective crime control policy that deters new offenders from becoming replicate offenders. In California, statistical show up is provided by how crime has dropped 26.0 share since 1994. (p 312) He then proceeds to contend on how teen offenders are more believably to be unpeaceful throughout their generation. The info he claims suggest that a small number of young offenders commit numerous unpunished crimes because the courts, especially the juvenile justice system, provide the offenders with illimitable second chances. The three strikes law would reinforce the motivation to change their criminal behavior because the juvenile justice systems do littl e to rehabilitate or deter young offenders from crime. (p 313) Schafer reinforces his argument by conducting a survey to measures the offenders experiences with the consequences of their crimes. The leave of the survey concluded that, 61 percent of the offenders said they would not or probably would not commit a serious or violent crime if they knew their prison sentence would be doubled and 70 percent said that would not or probably would not commit the crime if they knew they would receive life in prison. (p 314) His survey demonst arranged a impediment effect from the root of the source. To conclude Schafers argument, he shewd that offenders, who have recurrent experiences with the criminal justice system, have learned through their consequences, and the rewards of the criminal act do not outweigh the consequences.Vitiellos Argument 3 Strikes is not a Deterrent to Violent CrimeVitiello argues that three strikes law have no effect in reducing serious crime and the cost of the law is not beneficial to our society. Vitiello explains three strikes supporters argument is found on semiempirical selective information that defines the efficiency of the law. The efficiency of the law is supported by data that does not have a connection with the three strikes law. Reports from California prove that prior to the three strikes law, crime was already declining and after the three strikes, in that respect were no drastic change in crime. Vitiello furthermore argues that when law makers were essay to measure the three strikes obstruction effect, they failed to find a marginal deterrent effect. There was a small change, but there was no authoritative explanation on the turn down in the crime rate. The law itself is not helpful to the criminal justice system. Vitiello compared Californias and the nations crime rate average. He proven that Sectary of State Jones station on how California exceeding the dec in crime nationwide, cuts both personal manners was fals e. The example given was that new-fangled Yorks policing polices had problems with crime during the 1990s, but it did not adapted the three strikes law however, novel York, had a higher diminution in crime than California. Vitiello also fictional character the authors of Punishment and Democracy to support his position. The authors of Punishment and Democracy found that the decline in crime rate followed by the three strikes was not the cause of the decline, but the authors found that the decline in the crime rate preceded passing of the law. Even when the law was passed, there was not dramatic change because the crime rate stayed the same. The cause of the crime rate to be neutral was the decline that was operating prior to the passage of the law continued to be the master(a) reason for the drop in crime rates. Therefore, the three strikes play no percentage in the decline in crime rate. Overall, Vitiellos argument is based on empirical studies. His research found that Califo rnia would have experience virtually the entire drop in crime without three strikes.ANAYLSISSchafers position on the three strikes law deters take up offenders. Based on his studies, the evidence he provides concludes a convincing argument. Schafer explains how the concept of deterrence reflects on offenders and repeat offenders. Following by his survey, the results created a solid foundation for his argument. The whole brain of general deterrence is very effective. People are likely to commit a crime when the opportunity arises. If the consequence is hooligan they will be afraid to commit the crime. The creation of three strikes law is to put the concern in peoples mind to make them think twice about violating the law. completely it takes a single thought about if its worth it or not. I see the specific deterrence theory as a way to deter repeat offenders. The three strikes helps fix the criminal justice system by putting those who choose to become repeat offenders to stay in jail. Most crimes today are from repeat offenders. From the Bureau of Justice Statistic supererogatory Report, A 2002 study survey showed that among nearly 275,000 prisoners released in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years, and 51.8% were back in prison. Explaining how more of our prisoners that get convicted are more likely to go back in prison. This is where the three strikes law takes place. We created a breastwork for those offenders to think about what they are doing. We make them think about if its worth twenty five years to life.Another effective reason why three strikes is effective is because it targets repeat offenders who fail to change their criminal behavior after the second time. The mandatory twenty five years to life for third time offenders will put them away for a long time and it also keep them off the streets. This type of get tough law has done its part on reducing the crime rate throughout the nation. It serves as a deterrent and its the best weapon we got against repeat offenders. From Analysis of the California Attorney Generals Report, the drop in the crime rate that California has experiences since 1993 is drastically different from the first four year of 1990-1993 where the boilersuit crime rate dropped only 2.4% and the violent crime rate change magnitude 7.3%. When the three strikes law took effect, the crime rate dropped drastically to about 5 %. Some may argue that crime was reducing before the three strikes law. Data shows that crime was dropping before the law was passing, but when the law did pass, it drastically declined boosting the drop further.Moreover, crime can be seen as a rational choice theory. The theory proposes that offenders measure the opportunities, cost, and benefits of particular crimes. (Hagan.2010. p 101) Hagan referenced Cornish and Clarkes (1986) rational choice theory by explaining how crime is a matter of situational choice and we need to increase the certainty and the severity of the penalis ation to exclude the temptation and the choice of criminal activity. Therefore, the three strikes law plays that role of decreasing the situational choice, so that crime cannot happen. The cost and benefit of the crime does not equal the punishment. In results, offenders are more likely to disregard criminal behavior because the three strikes law decreases the motivation to commit a crime. final stageThe three strikes law is used as deterrence. Many argue that its a waste of governments money. Some argue that its the best tool we got against repeat offenders. I personally feel that its the only defense we got against repeat offenders. The theory hindquarters the law supports why the law would work. This law is based on humankind behavior. The human behavior based on learning from experience and making sure that experience was enough to deter the offender from committing the same act. The three strikes law revolves around the Neoclassical Theory and it deters repeat offenders.