The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The expression "Three strikes and you are out" is derived from baseball, where a batter against whom three strikes are recorded strikes out. History The practice of imposing longer prison sentences on repeat offenders (versus first-time offenders who commit the same crime) is nothing new, as judges often take into consideration prior offenses when sentencing. However, there is a more recent history of mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders. For example, New York State had a long-standing Persistent Felony Offender law dating back to the early 20th century (partially ruled unconstitutional in 2010, but reaffirmed en banc shortly after). But such sentences were not compulsory in each case, and judges had much more discretion as to what term of incarceration should be imposed. The first true "three-strikes" law was passed in 1993, when Washington voters approved Initiative 593. California passed its own in 1994, when their voters passed Proposition 184 by an overwhelming majority, with 72% in favor and 28% against. The initiative proposed to the voters had the title of Three Strikes and You're Out, referring to de facto life imprisonment after being convicted of three violent or serious felonies which are listed under California Penal Code section 1192.7. The concept swiftly spread to other states, but none of them chose to adopt a law as sweeping as California's. By 2004, twenty-six states and the federal government had laws that satisfy the general criteria for designation as "three-strikes" statutes—namely, that a third felony conviction brings a sentence of 20 to life where 20 years must be served before becoming parole eligible. A 1997 study found that in California, "the three-strikes law did not decrease serious crime or petty theft rates below the level expected on the basis of preexisting trends." Three-strikes laws have been cited as an example of the McDonaldization of punishment, in which the focus of criminological and penological interest has shifted away from retribution and treatment tailored to the individual offender and toward the control of high-risk groups based on aggregations and statistical averages. A threestrikes system achieves uniformity in punishment of criminals in a certain class (viz., three-time offenders) in a way that is analogous to how a fast food restaurant achieves uniformity of its product. Enactment by States The following states have enacted three-strikes laws: New York has employed a habitual felon statute since 1797. North Carolina has had a law dealing with habitual felons since 1967, but the law was amended in 1994 and now means that a third conviction for any violent felony (which Page 26 of 190
includes any Class A, B, C, D or E Felony) will result in a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Maryland has had a habitual felon statute for violent offenders since 1975. The law was amended in 1994, meaning that a fourth conviction for a crime of violence mandates a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Alabama has had a habitual felon statute for serious and violent felons since 1977, providing for up to life imprisonment, and includes a mandatory life sentence without parole for three or more felony convictions for any crime and one of those convictions were for any offense classified as a Class A Felony (10–99 years or life). Delaware has had a three-strikes law providing up to life imprisonment for serious felonies since 1973, when the Delaware Criminal Code, contained under Part I, Title 11 of the Delaware Code, became effective. Texas has had a three-strikes with mandatory life sentence since at least 1952. In Rummel v. Estelle (1980), the US Supreme Court upheld Texas' statute, which arose from a case involving a refusal to repay $120.75 paid for air conditioning repair that Page 27 of 190
Page 2 and 3: Page 2 of 190
Page 10 and 11: 4. Throughout the process, we encou
Page 16 and 17: 1 Timothy 3:2-3 2 Now the overseer
Page 18 and 19: This work is not meant to be a piec
Page 20 and 21: programmes "designed with significa
Page 22 and 23: Mr Clinton said at one point the 19
Page 28 and 29: was, depending on the source cited,
Page 30 and 31: sentencing was considered so signif
Page 32 and 33: to overturning the three-strikes bi
Page 34 and 35: The second relates to the severity
Page 36 and 37: Religious Basis The history of puni
Page 38 and 39: potential pain associated with comm
Page 40 and 41: criminal justice system in itself p
Page 44 and 45: een applied to the states. On Febru
Page 46 and 47: ailable and non-bailable offenses w
Page 48 and 49: Austin v. United States In Austin v
Page 50 and 51: The "essential predicate" is "that
Page 52 and 53: The Court held that in the circumst
Page 54 and 55: Punishments Specifically Allowed In
Page 56 and 57: Professor Stinneford asserts that t
Page 58 and 59: without first punishing them suffic
Page 60 and 61: acknowledgment. Which further led t
Page 62 and 63: unfamiliar with the penal systems i
Page 64 and 65: In pre-1833 France, before jury wer
Page 66 and 67: imprisonment (for a person aged 16-
Page 68 and 69: percent in fiscal year 2000, 42.5 p
Page 70 and 71: Morton Berger - 200 years without p
Page 72 and 73: The practice of imposing longer pri
Page 74 and 75: The Australian Capital Territory, Q
Page 76 and 77:
committee viewed that the act was a
Page 78 and 79:
In the US on March 5, 2003, the U.S
Page 80 and 81:
the Guidelines are now considered a
Page 82 and 83:
United States v. Booker Though the
Page 84 and 85:
In 2010, the U.S. Sentencing Commis
Page 86 and 87:
Physical Injury (§5K2.2) If signif
Page 88 and 89:
the circumstances are unusual the g
Page 90 and 91:
Coercion and Duress (§5K2.12) If t
Page 92 and 93:
established. In such cases, it is e
Page 94 and 95:
any other reason; and (2) that did
Page 96 and 97:
10 6-12 8-14 10-16 15-21 21-27 24-3
Page 98 and 99:
Page 98 of 190
Page 100 and 101:
Notes _____________________________
Page 102 and 103:
Page 102 of 190
Page 104 and 105:
Page 104 of 190
Page 106 and 107:
Page 106 of 190
Page 108 and 109:
Page 108 of 190
Page 110 and 111:
Page 110 of 190
Page 112 and 113:
Page 112 of 190
Page 114 and 115:
Page 114 of 190
Page 116 and 117:
Page 116 of 190
Page 118 and 119:
Page 118 of 190
Page 120 and 121:
Page 120 of 190
Page 122 and 123:
Page 122 of 190
Page 124 and 125:
Page 124 of 190
Page 126 and 127:
Page 126 of 190
Page 128 and 129:
Page 128 of 190
Page 130 and 131:
Page 130 of 190
Page 132 and 133:
Page 132 of 190
Page 134 and 135:
Page 134 of 190
Page 136 and 137:
Page 136 of 190
Page 138 and 139:
Page 138 of 190
Page 140 and 141:
Page 140 of 190
Page 142 and 143:
Page 142 of 190
Page 144 and 145:
Page 144 of 190
Page 146 and 147:
Page 146 of 190
Page 148 and 149:
Page 148 of 190
Page 150 and 151:
Page 150 of 190
Page 152 and 153:
Page 152 of 190
Page 154 and 155:
Page 154 of 190
Page 156 and 157:
Page 156 of 190
Page 158 and 159:
Page 158 of 190
Page 160 and 161:
Page 160 of 190
Page 162 and 163:
Page 162 of 190
Page 164 and 165:
Page 164 of 190
Page 166 and 167:
Advocacy Foundation Publishers The
Page 168 and 169:
XVI for Drug-Free Communities Landm
Page 170 and 171:
Vol. VIII 2022 ComeUnity ReEngineer
Page 172 and 173:
Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitaliz
Page 174 and 175:
The e-Advocate Monthly Review 2018
Page 176 and 177:
2021 Biblically Responsible Investi
Page 178 and 179:
The e-Advocate Quarterly Special Ed
Page 180 and 181:
Legal Missions International Page 1
Page 182 and 183:
Vol. V 2019 XVII Russia Q-1 2019 XV
Page 184 and 185:
The e-Advocate Newsletter Genesis o
Page 186 and 187:
Extras The Nonprofit Advisors Group
Page 188 and 189:
About The Author John C (Jack) John
Page 190:
Page 190 of 190
show all

The Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?