Three Strikes Law Case Study

The reason for this paper is to inspect the viability of the three strikes law. The examination study will document the effect of the three strikes rule on internal and external stakeholders, trying to evaluate whether the law and comparative laws go about as a compelling obstacle to wrongdoing. The creation of the three strikes law first passed as Initiative 593 in Washington State in 1993. Then California law was passed its own version in 1994 as Proposition 184. Currently twenty-four states in the United States have some version of the “Three Strike Law”. The three-strike law is used as an instrument intended to protract sentences and discourage wrongdoing, particularly wrongdoing conferred by rehash guilty parties. Late studies have recommended
Internal stakeholders include those close to the inmates and those creating the law while the external stakeholders comprise of the public. The public plays a significant role in the implementation of the three-strike law application; the public pays taxes used to maintain correctional facilities housing offenders. Internal stakeholders influence the three-strike law regarding its implementation and amendments; an amendment can make the punishments to detainees more or less harsh. It is my proposition that the three-strike law needs to be wiped out and replaced with a more cost friendly law. However, to motivate people to buy into my plan I will discuss some of the adverse effects of the three-strike law.
A major issue that has been verging or overlooked by the media is the expense of maintaining the criminals. There is a presumption existing in people that, in New York State, a three-strike law would detain around 300 criminals every year (Mendis, 2013). The expense of the transportation would be minute; however, in a quarter century would be 6,000 or more detainees who may have been discharged. According to Mendis, the estimated cost of a
This will mean expanded therapeutic expenses as our penitentiaries are transformed into geriatric foundations. The expenses of constructing new prisons will be prompt, yet the cost of watching over a maturing jail populace will be passed on to the people to come (Karch &
Cravens, 2014). The expense of these new prisons, the staff essential to run them, and the cost of supporting imprisoned detainees would require an enormous increment of tax, an abomination to preservationist supporters of the law.
Conclusively, the three-strike law has a negative influence on the stakeholders and it is my belief that it needs to be changed to a more cost-friendly option. The creation of the three strikes law was in Washington followed by California State as an instrument intended to protract sentences and discourage wrongdoing, particularly wrongdoing conferred by rehash guilty parties. The expense of these new prisons, the staff essential to run them, and the cost of supporting imprisoned detainees would require an enormous increment of tax, an abomination to preservationist supporters of the law, which has a negative influence on all concerned