Do you believe that “three-strikes” laws are effective in preventing crime? Why or why not?
Below is a Sample Solution.
Remember! This is just a sample. You can get a custom paper from one of our expert writers.
Do you believe that “three-strikes” laws are effective in preventing crime? Why or why not?
No
Why:
It has not reduced violent crime at all. Violent crimes still exists in states that have implemented three-strikes laws.
It has led to increase in prison population which has an effect, in that offenders who are not serving life sentence cannot be rehabilitated well thus making them to re-offend after their sentence.
It does not prevent crime but rather increase the state funding to correctional institution yet crime rate continue to rise and that is why prison population continue to increase.
What contributes so much to crime is unemployment and alcohol consumption and alcohol consumption and without addressing the two issues, then it become a big problem the as the three-strikes laws does not address the issue.
Three-strikes laws do not deter people from committing crimes, Helland, E., & Tabarrok, A. (2007). With the implementation of the laws, people still commit crimes meaning it not so much effective as it ought to be.
It leads to increase in violence between the public and the police because when police effect arrests, the public mostly resists because they feel the laws are unjust and inhuman.
Three-strikes laws are not a serious response to crime. It therefore makes many just to continue committing crimes.
Reference
Helland, E., & Tabarrok, A. (2007). Does three strikes deter? A nonparametric estimation. Journal of human resources, 42(2), 309-330.