Many Americans believe that the law states that the punishment must fit the rime. I believe that individuals should not be imprisoned for life for petty crimes such as shop lifting and other small crimes. This principle, known as “proportionality,” is expressed in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights: “Excessive ball shall not be required, nor excessive fines Imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The rule of all crimes sentence under one law is not a good practice, and should be revamped. So many people In charge want to make simple solutions without putting much thought into it.

We will write a custom essay sample
on Criminal theories or any similar
topic specifically for you

Hire Writer

This 3 strike law doesn’t always work out. I remember the story of the guy who had 2 strikes already against him, and he took someone’s pizza and got life. There are a lot of stories like that, which is why from what I heard, they are thinking about making an adjustment to that law. I think that lengthy prison sentences do reduce the amount of crime In our society, but I also feel it is unfair to the prisoners. I think this because prison is nova desirable place to be In so people choose to avoid going there by not committing crimes.

Therefore, fewer crimes are committed. I feel that lengthy prison sentences re unfair to those being punished for their crimes. It is unfair to take away someone’s right to freedom and basically steal the remainder of their lives in prison, rotting away. I believe everyone deserves another chance. maybe even 100 chances If determining prison sentences so that it is a fair decision. We are all equal people after all, so what’s the difference? There is never such a thing as a perfect society; there will always be some sort of crime, one way or another.

With that said, in my personal opinion, i think that this law is another step towards sorting out the real criminals from the ones who don’t know what they were doing at the time, either driven by blind confusion on what is right or wrong, or driven by the pressure

Page 2 Criminal theories Essay

of others, or not actually wanting to do the crime that they committed, or they committed the crime under a circumstance that they could not get out of one way or another, sending those people back to their homes and families. While keeping in the people who commit the serious crimes. Crimes that they know they were doing, and had a wicked intention to do so.

Finally, the last thing to come to my head was the act that with this new law, prison overcrowding would be lessened due to the number of “hard time criminals” being released, back into the world. Putting one repeat offender in prison does not eliminate a lot of crime. When a criminal gets released from prison, the crimes continue. That’s what criminals do. A suspect, knowing that if convicted of petty theft will spend his life in prison has, quite literally, nothing to lose if he has to kill a few people to avoid arrest. This law was enacted to control the minority population.

It is too expensive to maintain and is costing the tax ayer billions of dollars. The idea of being caught and spending a long time in prison is meant to deter potential offenders from criminal activity and encourage more productive actions. But that does not always happen because not everybody thinks like that. Extending prison sentences would not discourage crimes simply because the circumstances of every individual are different; it all depends on the type of person they are. For some, it might need to take them their life to learn their lesson. But for others, they might have learned what was right the moment officers closed he cell door.

The truth is we will never know how much time is enough for any criminal, which is why I believe that the length of prison sentences should depend on the crime committed. The law destroys the flexibility of the courts because it set the standards of the court. No two crimes are the same; no two defendants are the same. Why should the court hold each case to the same standards if the circumstances are not the same? Law varies directly with conventionality. For instance people with less power in society are more likely to be officially defined as criminals versus people itch more power are less likely.

Politicians that have the most support will become elected to control society, and with their power they will control certain groups of people. The three strikes law was created to control the less fortunate group of people. This law only seems to apply to people of little means, it doesn’t apply to everyone, and therefore you can see there is a disproportionality of behavior of law through the three strikes law. Looking through the Rational/Legal perspective derived from (Kreskas 2004) it assumes that the law is to be applied equally, regardless of lass, race, or rank.

The main purpose of the criminal Justice system is to control crime, punish offenders and maintain coherence within society. The growth of Criminal Justice in the 30 years is because our system is reacting to deviant behavior. Basically if there is an increase in law-breaking then there will be more criminal Our society is not going to let criminals to continue to commit crime if the justice. control versus due process perspective emphasizes that criminal Justice swings like a pendulum between both perspectives.

These two models have different set of values hat compete for dominance over the other, and these values represent the extremes of each view. They both agree that the acceptance of the American legal system as it stands and therefore determines which action to take, the role of Judge and Jury determines the guilty, they also have limits to the powers of government to investigate and apprehend the person suspected of committing the crime, and lastly there must be a criminal Justice process when a crime has been committed (Kreskas, 2004).

The crime control model is the repression of criminal conduct, which is the out important function to be performed by the criminal process. Crime control is the central feature to social freedom, because if the laws that were implemented weren’t enforced then crime will continue which in turn more innocent people will become victimized. Therefore, efficiency is the goal, to apprehend, try, convict and imprison. This model has an emphasis is on extra judicial processes, which are things that happen out of court, like early fact finding. Crime control model presumes that factual guilt to keep process moving, such as guilty pleas.

Due process on the other and doesn’t trust fact-finding processes, because it sees risk of error in the process. This model emphasizes formal, adjudicative, and an adversary fact-finding processes, because it doesn’t have the same low tolerance for error that the crime control model has. The rules and safeguards of the criminal process are important. This model focuses on legal innocence and it is the basis for requiring an attorney for a defendant if s/he requests one (Kreskas, 2004). It is through the crime control model that the three strikes legislation was formed.

Society wanted to control the crimes repeated offenders were continually committing. Basically society decided that enough is enough, we will not allow career criminals to continue to commit crime. Sending someone to prison for life because they were I-walking is ridiculous. But that’s the way the 3 strikes law is written. If you break the law and get caught three times, obviously those first two punishments didn’t deter you. The three-strike law gives people two chances to start their life’s over. What other situations in life give you 3 chances to get it right? Anyone can make a mistake, which is their first offense.

They get punished for it but then are set free. If they again break the law again they need to look at things and realize this is no way to live. They’ll know this because of the strong penalties they’ll face if they continue their ways. If they break it a third time obviously they’re not going to change their ways and therefore they cannot function in society. Hence their removal. It is harsh, but it’s deterrents like this that are necessary to stop all but those who cannot be rehabilitated. I know it’d certainly deter me if I was faced with life in prison if I decided to rob a shop.

Whoever does, re the same people who are ruining this country, which represents freedom and justice for all. I believe that individuals should not be imprisoned for life for petty crimes such as shop lifting and other small crimes. This principle, known as “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and good practice, and should be revamped. I think that whatever decision is taken about should be careful to not abuse power and not play the role of God. “Humility is not cowardice. Meekness is not weakness. Humility and meekness are indeed spiritual powers. “-Swami Sivananda.

See More on

Related Posts

Tiffany from New York Essays

Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out