Limitation On Three-Strikes Law
...nd 12 year old Polly Klass getting kidnapped and murdered. Both of these felonies were committed by existing felons. Different events such as these set the course for the proposal of Proposition 184 in 1994. Proposition 184 (commonly referred to as the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law) imposed longer prison sentences for certain repeat offenders. Specifically, it requires that a person who is convicted of a felony and who has been previously convicted of one or more violent or serious felonies, be sentenced to state prison. It states that, for second strike offenders, if the person has one previous serious or violent felony conviction, the sentence for any new felony conviction (not just a serious or violent felony) is twice the term that they would usually get for the conviction. Offenders sentenced by the courts under this are often referred to as “second-strikers.” As of March 2004, about 35,000 inmates were second strikers (Marianne 1). But as for third strike offenders, under prop 184, the punishment after convicted is life imprisonment with the minimum term being 25 years. Offenders convicted under this are frequently referred to as “third-strikers.” As of March 2004, about 7,000 inmates were third strikers (Marianne 1). So Proposition 184 lengthened prison sentences for people who had previously been convicted of a violent or serious crime. Over the years, there has been much criticism about Proposition 184. An rapid increase of inmates and a sudden rise in prison spending was blamed on Proposition 184. Critics felt that the Proposition was inted=nded to punish people who commited violent crimes like rape and murder, but it took down people with non-violent crimes as well, and was therefore classified as unfair. Although the resulting crime rates were the real ways to tell if Proposition 184 was a success or a failure. But there are two sides to it. Some say that after Proposition 184 was passed, crime rates went down by around 50 percent. This would indicate that the proposition was clearly a success. But the opposing view argues that the crime rate in the entire country went down over the course of this time for completely different reasons then just the three-strikes law. One of the main purposes of Proposition 66 is to bring Proposition 184 back to its main focus of punishing the violent crime felons, so as to keep California a safer environment, not to waste billions of dollars. Proposition 66 is a chance for California to refine Proposition 184, to work out a few kinks. Proposition 66 looks to bring down prison spending substantially and keep undeserving criminals our of prison for unnecessary amounts of time. Not only does this Proposition amend the laws pertaining to the three-strikes policy, but it also amends the laws pertaining to sex crimes against children. Specifically, Proposition 66 requires that a sentence can only be set longer if the felony is violent or serious. Also, the actual felonies considered to be violent or serious will be narrowed so as not to be so broad. Some examples of these are attempted burglary and burglary. Another provision of the new prop is that multiple strikes cannot be given in a single trial, that is, to receive another strike, another trial must occur, separate from the existing one. One measure states that an increase in sentence of 6, 8, or 12 years shall be given to sexual predators who sexually penetrate or have oral contact with a child 12 years and older, and if the child is 10 or younger, the sentence can be up to 25 years. These changes will help California save in billions of dollars, keep prisons from clogging, and punish felons and sexual predators with what they truly deserve. From observing different field polls on Propos...