The NEED FOR The Three Hits Law Criminology Essay

The three attacks legislations is a rigorous mandatory life word without parole on offenders convicted of felony crimes. These offences include murder, robbery in which a dangerous weapon was used, rape, or burglary. Differing opinions suggest that three strikes legislations is unfair and unjust because the law excessively affects DARK-COLORED and Latino men who've a higher representation throughout the criminal justice system. Others suggest that the three strikes law violates the Eighth Amendment of the Costs of Protection under the law; because the law is unjust when convicted of a minor offense still matter as a punch. I believe the three strikes law deters crime and future criminal behavior because it assembles the thought of facing tough outcomes.


The three hits rules can be best recognized within the neoclassical theoretical platform. The theoretical framework is a direct approach to insurance plan making for the protection and control of criminal offenses. It focuses on policies alternatively than criminal offenses causation and less worried about finding factors behind offense, along with finding what deters future criminal behavior. The neoclassical theoretical platform can be coupled with the specific and standard deterrence theory. The precise deterrence theory emphasizes a point on the average person itself. The idea points out the discouragement of criminal behavior from future criminal serves by understanding the consequences. General deterrence theory specializes in preventing criminal offense by forging types of distinguish criminal habit. It exercises the general public view to deter other people from committing the same crime. The knowledge is use to restrain others from perpetrating the same legal acts.

Schafer's Discussion: 3 Hits as Deterrence

The idea of deterrence is split into two categories: basic deterrence and specific. Standard deterrence occurs when potential offenders identify the consequences of other people's actions and decide not to follow to their footsteps. Specific deterrence is brought on when offenders study from their history. Schafer believes the "3 strikes laws and regulations often have emerged as the answer to crime problems in America" since it reduces criminal offenses either by tossing offenders in jail or deterring potential offenders from committing crimes. (p311)

Schafer argues that three hits law is a highly effective crime control policy that deters more youthful offenders from becoming duplicate offenders. In California, statistical evidence is provided by how "crime has fallen 26. 0 percent since 1994. " (p 312) Then proceeds to contend on how juvenile offenders will be violent throughout their technology. The data he remarks "claim that a small variety of young offenders commit numerous unpunished crimes because the courts, especially the juvenile justice system, provide the offenders with countless second chances. The three strikes law would reinforce the motivation to change their criminal patterns because the juvenile justice systems "do little to rehabilitate or deter young offenders from criminal offenses. " (p 313) Schafer reinforces his debate by executing a survey to actions the offender's experience with the consequences of their crimes. The consequence of the survey concluded that, "61 percent of the offenders said they would not or probably would not commit a serious or violent offense if they understood their prison phrase would be doubled" and "70 percent said that could not or may not commit the crime if they recognized they would receive life in prison. " (p 314) His review shown a deterrent impact from the main of the source. To summarize Schafer's discussion, he demonstrated that offenders, who've repeated experience with the legal justice system, have learned through their consequences, and the rewards of the criminal act do not outweigh the consequences.

Vitiello's Discussion: 3 Attacks is not a Deterrent to Violent Crime

Vitiello argues that three hits law have no effect in lowering serious offense and the price tag on regulations is not beneficial to our culture. Vitiello explains three strikes supporters' argument is based on empirical data that identifies the efficiency of the law. The efficiency of the law is supported by data that does not have a reference to the three attacks law. Reviews from California verify that before the three strikes legislation, crime was already declining and after the three strikes, there were no major change in criminal offense. Vitiello furthermore argues that when law creators were endeavoring to gauge the three hits deterrent impact, they didn't find a marginal deterrent result. There was a tiny change, but there was no significant description on the decrease in the offense rate. Regulations itself is not beneficial to the legal justice system. Vitiello compared California's and the country's criminal offense rate average. He demonstrated that Sectary of Point out Jones position about how "California exceeding the decrease in crime nationwide, reductions both ways" was false. The example given was that New York's policing polices experienced problems with crime during the 1990s, but it didn't adapted the "three hits" laws; however, NY, had an increased decline in criminal offense than California. Vitiello also reference point the writers of Consequence and Democracy to aid his position. The authors of Abuse and Democracy found that the decline in crime rate accompanied by the "three strikes" had not been the reason for the decline, but "the writers discovered that the drop in the criminal offense rate preceded passage of regulations. " Even though the law was passed, there is not remarkable change because the criminal offense rate stayed the same. The reason for the crime rate to be neutral was "the decline that was operating prior to the passage of regulations stayed the primary reason behind the drop in criminal offenses rates. " Therefore, the three hits play no role in the decrease in crime rate. Overall, Vitiello's debate is based on empirical studies. His research found that "California could have experience virtually the complete drop in crime without "three strikes. "


Schafer's position on the three hits law deters repeat offenders. Predicated on his studies, the evidence he provides concludes a convincing discussion. Schafer explains the way the idea of deterrence demonstrates on offenders and do it again offenders. Following by his review, the results created a good foundation for his debate. The whole idea of general deterrence is very effective. Folks are more likely to commit a crime when the chance arises. If the outcome is "tough" they'll be reluctant to commit the criminal offense. The creation of three attacks law is to place worries in people's mind to make sure they are think twice about violating regulations. All it takes a single considered "whether it's worthwhile or not. " I start to see the specific deterrence theory as a way to deter repeat offenders. The three attacks helps fix the legal justice system by putting those who choose to become repeat offenders in which to stay jail. Most crimes today are from do it again offenders. From your Bureau of Justice Statistic Special Article, "A 2002 study survey exhibited that among almost 275, 000 prisoners released in 1994, 67. 5% were rearrested within 3 years, and 51. 8% were back prison. " Explaining how more of our prisoners that get convicted will return back in prison. This is where the three strikes law takes place. We created a hurdle for those offenders to think about what they are doing. We make sure they are think about whether it's worth 25 years alive.

Another effective reason why three strikes works well is basically because it targets repeat offenders who fail to change their unlawful behavior following the second time. The mandatory twenty five years to life for third time offenders will put them away for years looked after keep them off of the streets. This type of "get challenging" law did its part on lowering the crime rate throughout the country. It serves as a deterrent and it's really the best weapon we acquired against do it again offenders. From Evaluation of the California Attorney at law General's Report, "the drop in the criminal offenses rate that California has experience since 1993 is greatly different from the first four yr of 1990-1993 where in fact the overall crime rate dropped only 2. 4% and the violent crime rate increased 7. 3%. " Once the three strikes regulation took impact, the criminal offense rate dropped dramatically to about 5 %. Some may claim that criminal offenses was reducing before the three strikes laws. Data implies that crime was shedding before the law was passing, but when the law does pass, it significantly declined improving the drop further.

Moreover, crime can be seen as a logical choice theory. The idea proposes that offenders gauge the "opportunities, cost, and benefits of particular crimes. " (Hagan. 2010. p 101) Hagan referenced Cornish and Clarke's (1986) rational choice theory by detailing how crime is a subject of "situational choice" and we have to improve the certainty and the severe nature of the abuse to exclude the enticement and the decision of criminal activity. Therefore, the three attacks law takes on that role of lessening the situational choice, so that criminal offenses cannot happen. The price and advantage of the crime does not equal the abuse. In results, offenders are more likely to disregard criminal behavior because the three attacks law reduces the drive to commit a criminal offenses.


The three hits law is used as deterrence. Many argue that it's a misuse of government's money. Some dispute that it's the best tool we got against do it again offenders. Personally, i feel that it's the only protection we acquired against do it again offenders. The theory behind regulations supports why the law would work. This law is based on human tendencies. The human behavior based on learning from experience and making sure that experience was enough to deter the offender from committing the same function. The three attacks legislation revolves around the Neoclassical Theory and it deters do it again offenders.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)