250 words each agree or disagree each questions  Q 1. Sentencing of convicted criminals has been the point of discussion on many fronts and even most recently the presidential debate. These discussions will ultimately fuel further reform in the future. In the past sentencing reform has been to correct mistakes made in the sentencing processes of the convicted. I am going to not so much focus on the disparity between racial and socioeconomic factors that impact sentencing and focus on the side effects of three strike laws that were unintentional from their purpose. Laws that are similar to the Three Strikes Laws have an impact the participation of criminal behavior. Iyengar writes criminal activity reduced by 20 percent for second-strike offenders and 28 percent for third-strike eligible offenders (Iyengar, 2010). There is much to be said about these types of laws and the impact that it has on corrections and the types of impact it as on the populations within a jail or prison in the states these laws are in effect. The purpose of these types of laws is to reduce the reoccurrence of crime by offenders and to put repeat offenders in jail for longer periods of crimes. An example of the three strikes law can be found in Datta’s review of the three strikes law he notes that a first time offender would receive a sentence length double the amount of time for the first conviction and the sentence length for the third strike is a dramatic increase in sentence time (Datta, 2017).  With these types of laws that are in place it has a dramatic effect on the corrections facility because the time spent for placement for crimes increases the burden on the facility. We previously discussed this in other weeks about the challenges that corrections facilities have during their normal day to day operations. This growth in population size and length of time served puts an unnecessary strain on the systems that are in place across the state of California. “The high cost of incarceration combined with the high cost of violent crime relative to non-violent crime implies that Three Strikes may not be a cost-effective means of reducing crime” (Iyengar, 2010). This is a concern for all types of facilities and sentencing has no regard to the capabilities of the criminal justice system, specifically the corrections systems which face the burden of holding criminals for longer periods of times. A perfect example is a drug crimes in California where the second strike carries a four year sentence and after a third strike the time is 25 years. This is a long standing issue where a nonviolent offender is in cell for a quarter of a century. Is there a perfect methodology for incarcerating individuals for an appropriate amount of time, absolutely not, but these lengthy sentences for non-violent crimes carry a heavy burden and do not treat the root cause of the crime.   References Datta, A. (2017). California’s Three Strikes Law Revisited: Assessing the Long-Term Effects .

1. 250 words each agree or disagree each questions
Q 1.
Sentencing of convicted criminals has been the point of
discussion on many fronts and even most recently the
presidential debate. These discussions will ultimately fuel
further reform in the future. In the past sentencing reform has
been to correct mistakes made in the sentencing processes of the
convicted. I am going to not so much focus on the disparity
between racial and socioeconomic factors that impact
sentencing and focus on the side effects of three strike laws that
were unintentional from their purpose. Laws that are similar to
the Three Strikes Laws have an impact the participation of
criminal behavior. Iyengar writes criminal activity reduced by
20 percent for second-strike offenders and 28 percent for third-
strike eligible offenders (Iyengar, 2010). There is much to be
said about these types of laws and the impact that it has on
corrections and the types of impact it as on the populations
within a jail or prison in the states these laws are in effect. The
purpose of these types of laws is to reduce the reoccurrence of
crime by offenders and to put repeat offenders in jail for longer
periods of crimes. An example of the three strikes law can be
found in Datta’s review of the three strikes law he notes that a
first time offender would receive a sentence length double the
amount of time for the first conviction and the sentence length
for the third strike is a dramatic increase in sentence time
(Datta, 2017).
With these types of laws that are in place it has a dramatic
effect on the corrections facility because the time spent for
placement for crimes increases the burden on the facility. We
previously discussed this in other weeks about the challenges

2. that corrections facilities have during their normal day to day
operations. This growth in population size and length of time
served puts an unnecessary strain on the systems that are in
place across the state of California. “The high cost of
incarceration combined with the high cost of violent crime
relative to non-violent crime implies that Three Strikes may not
be a cost-effective means of reducing crime” (Iyengar, 2010).
This is a concern for all types of facilities and sentencing has
no regard to the capabilities of the criminal justice system,
specifically the corrections systems which face the burden of
holding criminals for longer periods of times. A perfect
example is a drug crimes in California where the second strike
carries a four year sentence and after a third strike the time is
25 years. This is a long standing issue where a nonviolent
offender is in cell for a quarter of a century. Is there a perfect
methodology for incarcerating individuals for an appropriate
amount of time, absolutely not, but these lengthy sentences for
non-violent crimes carry a heavy burden and do not treat the
root cause of the crime.
References
Datta, A. (2017). California’s Three Strikes Law Revisited:
Assessing the Long-Term Effects of the Law.
Atlantic Economic Journal
,
45
(2), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-017-9544-8ences:
Iyengar, R. (2010). I’d Rather be Hanged for a Sheep than a
Lamb The Unintended Consequences of “Three-Strikes” Laws.
IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc
. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1698172152/

3. Q 2.
As many things have evolved over years and years of trial and
error that is no different than sentencing philosophies and
models. The purpose of sentencing is so that the offender is not
only held accountable but that they are rehabilitated if they will
be going back into society. Of course most sentencing
guidelines and instruction is given by the state, government and
the legislator to be handed down. There are many different
models and philosophies that go hand in hand with punishments.
Deterrence is one in which the philosophy tries to install
punishments so that the person who is committing the offence
will not do it because they know there will be a form of
punishment at the end. Lets say that someone committed theft,
they are sentenced because of it and they go to jail. They then
in the prison commit an offence and instead of making formal
proceedings, the officer chooses to give them a warning as a
deterrence for not doing the action again. In line with this many
states have the three strikes you are out law in place. This I
believe in many cases acts as a deterrence for criminals to
commit the same crimes over and over again.” “Three Strikes
and You’re Out” laws are intended to keep career criminals
(“habitual offenders,” as they’re often known in the legal
system) locked up for life. In general, anyone who is convicted
of three felonies—three strikes—can receive (or must receive) a
very long prison sentence. In some states, it’s 15 years to life;
in others, 25 years to life” (Criminaldefenselawyer). The thing
about this law however is that the first two strikes must be in
the form of a serious felony which can include burglary, rape or
arson the third offense however can be something as small as
theft. They can carry heavy penalties and the person will be
locked away for long periods of time.
I think in looking at this law however there are some flaws in it.

4. There are people who have committed crimes in which they
have served their sentences and then unfortunately commit a
smaller crime in which they now are faced with long prison
terms and tax payers are now having to pay for them to be
incarcerated. I think that yes it is a great model and that there
are some good aspects of it but why not make the first charge
stick and if they are not being rehabbed properly then change
the program? I am not sure that any of those suggestions would
work but I think showing that if you keep committing these
crimes that you will have 3 chances at times doesn’t work. If
they don’t learn the first time what is to say the subsequent
times will even be something that phases them? I think that with
this model and terms there needs to be programs in place to try
to help them not fall back into old habits.
Will
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/three-strikes-
law.htm