Criminal Justice Essay
Question 1
Assume you are Ollin Crawford’s lawyer. Your job is to get her paroled quickly. Provide a brief argument that claims that she stayed in prison longer than Sue Kennon (who is white and affluent) because of racial and socioeconomic factors (Ms. Crawford is poor and black.). Now play the role of the district attorney. Make an argument that holds that Ms. Crawford’s long term in prison is justified on the merits, and does not reflect racism or insensitivity to socioeconomic issues.
Playing the role of Ollin Crawford’s lawyer, it is necessary to consider a number of factors that influence the case, including racial, social, and economic factors. In order to get Ollin Crawford paroled quickly, there is a need for finding a compelling argument in her favor. I would consider her race, social status, and economic position. Ollin Crawford is black. Hence, it is possible to assume that she stayed in prison longer than white inmates because of racial discrimination. Besides, I would consider her social status that did not allow her to pay for lawyer’s services aimed at release on parole. All in all, a brief argument made by Ollin Crawford’s lawyer will sound like this: “Ollin Crawford, stayed in prison longer than Sue Kennon because of the existence of racial inequality in the criminal justice system that does not provide a poor black inmate with the same legal rights enjoyed by an affluent white inmate”.
However, playing the role of the district attorney, I would consider the key facts of the case in order to justify Ms. Crawford’s long-term imprisonment, without mentioning racist issues and socioeconomic issues. Individuals who commit repeated crimes shall be subject to long-term imprisonment, without parole. The argument made by the district attorney will sound like this: “Ms. Crawford is the longest-serving inmate at the Virginia Correctional Center for Women because she was convicted under the state’s three-time loser law that ruled out parole. Ms. Crawford committed more than three offenses in a short period of time – she robbed four Fairfax County banks in an eight-week period. The court’s decision in her case is used as a tool to affect others who plan to commit the crime like repeated bank robbery. According to researchers, “repeats occur quickly, and the analyses suggest that the similarities between repeated robberies of the same branch, in weapon use, and in number and ethnicity of robbers strongly suggest that repeats are committed by the same people” (Matthew et al., p. 162). Hence, Ms. Crawford’s long-term imprisonment can be justified by the court’s decision on the merits.
Question 2
“Three-Strikes” laws have been around a long time. What is their intent? When the lawmakers in Richmond, Virginia, established a three-strikes law in Virginia, who were they targeting? To what extent was the law designed to take people like Ms. Crawford off the street for a very long time?
There is much evidence taken from the academic literature that“Three-Strikes” laws have been around for a long time with the intent to have a psychological impact on the community and the crime rate. Actually, “Three-Strikes” laws are associated with a metaphor used in a baseball game: “three strikes and you are out” (Taifa, 1994, p. 717). Three-strike provisions are aimed at imposing a mandatory life sentence without having an opportunity to be released on parole. In this case, offenders who committed crimes that are categorized as third violent offenses are subject to long-term imprisonment. The lawmakers in Richmond, Virginia, established a three-strikes law in Virginia in order to target offenders involved in repeated crimes like bank robbery and others, including serious violent crimes. In other words, repeat offenders are considered to be the most serious problem faced by the criminal justice system. In order to resolve this problem, there is a need for managing the court’s decisions. According to experts, “these offenders are considered unresponsive to incarceration as a means of behavior modification, and undeterred by the prospect of serving time in prison” (A Primer: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade” (2005). Hence, due to longer sentences, this group of offenders could be used as a tool to reduce the crime rate and affect the community. The law was designed to ensure public safety; therefore, the primary justification of the Three Strikes law was to foster the reduction of the crime rate in the state in two ways. First of all, the law could be used to “remove repeat offenders from communities for longer periods of time, eliminating the possibility that they could commit new crimes during that period-referred to as an “incapacitation” effect” (A Primer: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade” (2005). Secondly, the Three Strikes law was suggested to affect the public perception of the severe punishment methods. As a result, potential offenders could be deterred from continuous criminal activity.
Question 3
One of the criticisms of three-strikes laws is that they abolish the use of discretionary sentencing. That is, the terms and conditions of the sentence are mandatory. What are the strengths and weaknesses of laws that eliminate discretionary sentencing? Half of your answer should be on “strengths,” the other half on “weaknesses.”
Placing emphasis on the criticisms of three-strikes laws, it is necessary to assess the need for abolishing the use of discretionary sentencing, in which the terms and conditions of the sentence are mandatory. Discretion is defined as the legal power of the judiciary which allows making legal court’s decisions at their own discretion (Primer: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade” (2005). Actually, three-strikes laws are intended to abolish the use of discretionary sentencing.
The weaknesses of the laws that eliminate discretionary sentencing are multiple. First of all, these laws do not help to reduce the high rates of incarceration in the United States. It is known that the great number of inmates is the result of decisions made based on three-strikes laws. Besides, these laws do not allow reducing the use and severity of prison sentences. Due to the elimination of discretionary sentencing, the lengths of prison sentences will not be reduced significantly. Moreover, these laws might lead to an increased number of unfair sentences. Many prisoners might serve life sentences for criminal activity they did not commit. Furthermore, these laws may lead to a reduction of law enforcement personnel because of the need to pay for the maintenance of the criminal justice system, including a large number of people in prisons and jails. Prison overpopulation will lead to increased taxes for ordinary citizens.
The strengths of the laws that are aimed at eliminating discretionary sentencing are obvious.
The laws which eliminate discretionary sentencing do alter the prevailing attitudes toward criminal activity and criminals. As a result of the elimination of discretionary sentencing, prosecutors, judges, parole officers, and other correctional officials have an opportunity to deal more harshly with criminals convicted of severe crimes. Besides, citizens have an opportunity to enjoy security because the streets will be kept safe, the crime rate will be reduced (Taifa, 1994).
Question 4
Newspaper accounts make a big deal of the fact that in robbing banks, Ms. Crawford and Ms. Kennon did not use lethal weapons. Ms. Crawford stuffed a round object in a sock and claimed it was a hand grenade, while Ms. Kennon used a toy gun. What bearing should the nature of the “weapons” used in a bank robbery affect sentencing? Make two arguments. In one, argue the following point: “When sentencing criminals for bank robbery, the judge should take into account the nature of the weapons used to commit the act.” On the other, argue the following point: “When sentencing criminals for bank robbery, the judge should not take into account the nature of the weapons used to commit the act.”
The nature of bearing of the “weapons” used by criminals in case of a bank robbery might affect sentencing. There are two arguments related to this issue.
On the one hand, when sentencing criminals for bank robbery, the judge should take into account the nature of the weapons used to commit the act. It becomes clear that when an individual uses a toy gun or any other object to terrify bank employees and clients, he/she cannot commit murder. As a result, there will be no lethal outcomes in the case of bank robbery. Anyway, judicial decision-making is based on the application of constitutional laws and administrative regulations. These legal actions are aimed to promote morality. However, if an individual does not kill anybody, he/she cannot be called a murderer. Robbing a bank with a toy gun means using deception as a key tool in committing a crime. This fact means that when sentencing an individual for a crime like a bank robbery, the judge should take into account the nature of the weapons used by the individual who committed the criminal act. The type of punishment will depend on the nature of the weapons.
On the other hand, when sentencing criminals for bank robbery, the judge should not take into account the nature of the weapons used to commit the act. The act of crime means a violation of the established laws, rules, and regulations. If an individual plans a criminal activity, he/she should be punished for the illegal actions, which violate the US Constitution. Assuming that any type of bank robbery is immoral, the criminal justice system should be aimed at reducing the rate of illegal activity of citizens. Hence, when sentencing an individual for committing a bank robbery, the judge should not take into account the nature of the weapons, instead, he should be focused on the decision of the criminal to commit the act of robbery (Matthew, 2001).
Question 5
To what extent do state legislatures pass three-strike laws based on scientific evidence that shows their efficacy? To what extent are they passed for political reasons? Is there evidence that three-strike laws lower the crime rate? Can they actually lead to increased crime?
State legislatures tend to pass three-strike laws based on scientific evidence that shows their efficacy to a rather small extent. Recent studies show that three-strike laws are perceived as the tools that should be used to address ineffective crime reduction policies. According to researchers, “25 states and Congress passed three-strikes laws, designed to deter criminal offenders by mandating significant sentence enhancements for those with prior convictions” (Kovandzik et al., 2006). Research findings show that three-strikes laws are inefficient as they contribute to the increased homicide rate and the absence of a significant reduction in the crime rate. Thus, state legislatures pass three-strike laws placing insignificant emphasis on scientific evidence that shows the efficacy of these laws.
At the same time, three-strike laws are passed by state legislatures for political reasons to a greater extent. In a recent study, researchers used a hierarchical logistic model in order to provide an analysis of the data, which included three-strikes laws, eligible criminals, in the state of California. The research findings showed that “discretion is widely exercised by elected prosecutors and judges in the administration of Three Strikes” (Chen, 2014, p.257). Actually, there were political concerns associated with discretion that served the role of a “safety valve” (Chen, 2014). In other words, these political concerns may influence sentencing decision-making. In general, the political environment is linked to the application of the three-strikes laws. The factors that influence the strict application of these laws include race, age, and unemployment status.
Actually, there is no evidence that three-strike laws lower the crime rate. They can actually lead to increased crime because many criminals move to other states with less harsh laws to commit crimes. According to researchers, “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, 2008).
References
A Primer: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade” (2005). Legislative Analyst’s Office. Retrieved from:<http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm >
Chen, E. Y. (2014). “In the Furtherance of Justice, Injustice, or Both? A Multilevel Analysis of Courtroom Context and the Implementation of Three Strikes,” Justice Quarterly, 31(2): 257-286.
Iyengar, R. (2008). “I’d rather be Hanged for a Sheep than a Lamb: The Unintended Consequences of ‘Three-Strikes’ Laws,” NBER Working Paper No. 13784 Issued in February 2008.
Kovandzik, T. V., Sloan, J. J. & Vieraitis, V. M. (2006).“Striking out” as crime reduction policy: The impact of “three strikes” laws on crime rates in U.S. Cities,” Justice Quarterly, 21(2): 207-239.
Matthew, R., Pease, C & Pease, K. (2001). “Repeated Bank Robbery: Theme and Variations,” Crime Prevention Studies, 12: 153-164.
Taifa, N. (1994). “Three-Strikes-and-You’re-Out – Mandatory Life Imprisonment for Third Time Felons,” 20 U. Dayton L. Rev. 717 (1994-1995).
