Three Strikes Law To Reduce Crime

The Three Strikes Law was first implemented in 1993, to harshly prosecute repeat offenders of serious crimes by installing fear of receiving strict sentences. The Three Strikes Law aimed to increase prison time in hopes of deterring criminals from committing future crimes. However, the question emerged about whether or not the Three Strikes Law was effectively reducing crime rates. As well as reducing the overall cost of imprisonment and mass incarceration issues already present. The Three Strikes Law are imposing negative long lasting effects by increasing certain types of crimes while decreasing others, exuberating state budgets, such as increased costs in case processing’s and trials that vary state to state, inhumane treatment, death behind bars, discrimination, and increasing suicide rates amongst third strikers awaiting trial and aggravating mass incarceration, one of the biggest issues with the Three Strikes Law.
The Three Strikes Law need to be revised and/or amended and prevention and rehabilitation programs need to be installed, a study has shown that this is a more effective way to deter criminals from committing crimes in the future. Guidelines need to be established that could promote consistency in sentencing, parole and release guidelines should be consistent and fair amongst all the defendants regardless of individual character or race. For this reason, the inner workings of court judgements need to be evaluated in each individual case. The Three Strikes Law need to be assessed on a state level context and its social structure. Although the Three Strikes Law has positive motives, it has become apparent that the cons could outweigh the