I've attached my writing assignment that needs to be revised based on the feedback attachment. TASK: Your job is to perform a substantial revision of one of your four major writing assignments so far

Last 7

Andrea Breath

Professor Dawn Strickland

GRST 501-B04

September 20, 2019

Mandatory Sentencing and the Three Strike Rule

Introduction

According to Olson (37), the three-strike rule is a mandatory life sentencing without vindication of offenders convicted of the most serious crimes like murder, rape or kidnapping to mention a few . Today, the criminal justice system has been in the spotlight due to controversies raising questions about its effectiveness. At this juncture, it’s imperative to note that one of the primary challenges of the current criminal justice system is the inability to prevent crimes. In this line of argument, the introduction of the three-strike rule and mandatory sentencing becomes of the most controversial issues that have raised endless debates. To put it in its right perspective, the initial goal of introducing the three-strike rule was to prevent violent crimes by harshly punishing the offenders. Unfortunately, the implementation of mandatory sentencing and three-strike rule has raised a lot of issues about crime and punishment. This paper, therefore, seeks to explicitly explore the implications of mandatory sentencing and the three-strike rule. The idea is to have a better insight of these policies and possibly examine whether the benefits of each out weights its negative implications.

According to Sutton (37-40) the introduction of the three-strike rule and mandatory sentencing was perhaps one of the most exciting innovation in the justice system in America. To have a deeper understanding Schultz (557) try to broaden our understanding of the three-strike rule and mandatory sentencing. In the late 90s, the federal government started by enacting mandatory sentencing to a criminal who repeatedly acted against the law. These statues were later known as ‘three-strike laws” because they were put into legal effect once a criminal committed their third offence. By 2000s most states, as well as the federal government, has enacted the statutes into law. The original idea behind the swift enactment of the three third rule is to get rid of criminals off the streets. In layman’s terms, the three-strike rule was innovation to ensure public safety. Over the years, the laws have been criticized under the argument that the law is disproportionate to the crimes as well as the expansion of correctional facilities. As Marvell et al (90-92) argues the introduction of the laws purposed to enhance the preexisting legislation in the purported notion of preventing crimes and issues of recidivism. It’s worth mentioning that when the three-strike rule was introduced in different states, they forced to introduce the law to facilitate criminal justice at their levels.

Marvell et al (98-94) summarily argues says that most offenders who have been sentenced using the three-strike law have rarely drawn much criticism. That said, it’s almost impossible to underestimate the benefits that came with the introduction of the three-strike rule. As aforementioned, one of the major issues facing the justice department is the lack of fairness. Some have argued that the entire justice and criminal system is corrupt. This is specifically because of rising causes of inequality and unfairness based on color, race or nationality. However, the three-strike rule has brought some decency in the department . Ultimately, the innovation of mandatory sentencing seems to help the country achieve its goal of eliminating violent offenders from the streets. It’s therefore right to argue that the three-strike rules have a long-term effect. However, the statues have been questioned based on fairness. To have a clear picture, the laws have been critiqued in instances where it treats minor offenders harshly. For example, it may sound a bit weird when a shoplifter is sent to prison for 25 years.

The argument by Sutton (40-56) makes a lot of sense that some offenders who are convicted under the three-strike rule are non-violent. The U.S justice department has been associated with many controversies. Among the major ones are racism and denial of fair judgement particularly among the minority. Statistics show that the number of minorities groups convicted each year is high compared to that of whites . African American, for example, are mostly associated with crimes and drugs recording the highest number of offenders who are convicted in the U.S. Far from that, the prior intent of introducing these laws was to stop deviance behaviors in society. For unclear reasons criminals associated with lesser crimes like petty theft are being convicted for longer jail terms as opposed to violent offenders. Under such circumstances then it’s reasonable to question the three-strike rule. The original mandate of these laws is no longer exercised instead of its propagating impunity.

Sharing the same ideology as Olson (76-98) the three-strike rule has several negativities. Currently, the overcrowding of correctional facilities in the country is a major issue. A recent survey shows that the correctional facilities population has immensely grown to the extent that not only is expansion necessary but urgent. Although the initial plan of mandatory sentencing was to prevent crimes, its time lawmakers and relevant authorities realize the need for change. Arguably, the three-strike rule has been linked with harsh and unnecessary sentencing. At the same time, the approach has resulted in the uncontrollable expansion of the correction facilities. Overcrowding in prisons has, on the other hand, has far-fetching effects. For instance, it results in health issues and abuse of inmates . Moreover, mandatory sentencing has been condemned for unnecessary punishing and convictions of minor offenders. It’s therefore right to argue that rather than achieving its goal, it continues to aggravate the already existing problems in most correctional facilities.

The major purpose of criminal law is to punish and rehabilitate offenders. However, in some instances, offenders are unlikely to change. This gives, therefore, presents a chance to argue that the three-strike rule helps convict such offenders. These are people who cannot coexist with members of society. As such the mandated imprisonment for repeat offenders helps keep violent characters off the streets. Arguably, mandatory sentencing can hinder the reoccurrence of crime. Compared to the previous years, the nation has enjoyed the peace and the level of crimes has significantly reduced.

To conclude, the implementation of mandatory sentencing has somehow resulted worsened the situation in prisons. As many critiques argue it has contributed to quite controversial results. In one end, mandatory sentencing has proven to combat the level of crimes by prescribing longer terms for repeat offenders. As such the law has the potential to prevent recidivism. Equally important the three-strike rule played a big role in keeping criminals off the streets. At the other hand, the three-strike rule has been associated with serious controversies. It has led to overcrowding of prison due to unnecessary convictions. Essentially the paramount role of criminal law and criminal justice system is to maintain law and order and influencing people’s behaviors. Similarly, the role of the correction facilities is to rehabilitee . However, the three-strike law seems to contravene this same ideology. The controversy sounding mandatory sentencing continues with some people arguing that it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money while others argue that as a tool it has helped to combat violence.

Work Cited

Marvell, Thomas B., and Carlisle E. Moody. "The lethal effects of three-strike laws." The Journal of Legal Studies  3 0.1 (2001): 89-106 .

Olson, T. M. (1999). Strike One, Ready for More: The Consequences of Plea Bargaining" First Strike" Offenders under California's" Three Strikes" Law. Cal. WL Rev., 36, 545.

Schultz, David. "No joy in mudville tonight: The impact of three strike laws on state and federal corrections policy, resources, and crime Control." Cornell JL & Pub. Pol'y 9 (1999): 557.

Sutton, John R. "Symbol and Substance: Effects of C California’s Three Strikes Law on Felony Sentencing." Law & Society Review 47.1 (2013): 37-72.

Content-2 Although your paper contains a lot of information, I feel that it lacked the development of some ideas. Some conclusions were weakly drawn and the evidence didn’t fully support what you wanted to say. It would be helpful to go back through your paper and clarify some of your points. It may be that you stated a good argument, but it wasn’t supported. As a writer, we can make claims all day long, but unless we have valid research to support it, it will be difficult for others to accept those arguments as credible. It might be helpful to review additional literature or find more sources to make a more thorough support of your claims.

Structure-3 For the most part, your transitions were strong and your paper followed a logical progression from the beginning to the end. Your paragraphs were sufficient in their length and the information contained within.
Readability-3 This paper didn’t contain any significant errors or typos, but there were occasional places where a typo cropped up in your writing. There were also a few times when the sentence lacked clarity, and I tried to point out those instances. When you do your final proofread, be sure that you look for places where a stronger word would be more appropriate. Your word choice is important in a graduate paper. You used a variety of sentence structures which added flavor and ease of reading to the paper. For the most part, your word choice conveyed a level of professionalism and most of your ideas were clearly expressed.
Documentation-2 The paper lacked enough research to support many of your assertions. Although there were citations placed throughout the paper, there were times that you made a definitive statement, but no evidence was given. Remember that a personal opinion is not enough in a research paper-your statements must be supported by research.