Three Strikes as Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The three strikes law can easily be considered a cruel and unusual punishment.  Maybe not for a serious violent crime, but when this is not considered, how can it be fair?  The cartoon above puts humor on the topic.  He hopes that the club will help him when considering the eighth amendment. 

Three Strikes Humor

The three strikes law issued in California is a very controversial issue.  This law requires a mandatory minimum for a sentence for each “strike” or crime an individual does.  On the third strike, the individual receives 25 years to life in prison.  It is so controversial because it does not consider the serious of the crime or if it was a violent or not violent crime.  This cartoon makes fun at California’s three strike law and showing how easy it is to end up in prison.

Prison Reform : Just How Did it All Start?

Since the beginning of man's time on earth there has been crime. It is human nature to break the rules and if the society of that time judges the crime as wrong, it is human nature to punish. Prisons have been institutions that have been around for centuries but prison reform did not start coming into its own until the mid 18th century. 

The Father of Prison Reform

Living up to his nickname quite well, John Howard is credited with starting the prison reform movement in the mid 1700's after being taken prisoner in Brest, France and then being moved again up the French Coast. He was later exchanged for a French officer held by the British, and he quickly traveled to the Commissioners of Sick and Wounded Seamen in London to seek help on behalf of his fellow captives. It is believed that it was this experience that generated his interest and drive to reform prisons. After being elected the High Sheriff of Bedfordshire, he gained the power to inspect and reform the prison system in England. He was shocked to see the states that inmates were living in and brought their conditions to the attention of Parliament in 1774. From 1777 to 1790 Howard extensively traveled Europe conducting surveys and improving the state of prisons in may different countries. He wrote multiple books on the matter and was awarded honorary degrees and awards for his work.

Legacy Today

Almost eighty years after his death, the Howard Association was formed in London, with the aim of "promotion of the most efficient means of penal treatment and crime prevention" and to promote "a reformatory and radically preventive treatment of offenders". In its first annual report in 1867, the Association stated that its efforts had been focused on "the promotion of reformatory and remunerative prison labor, and the abolition of capital punishment." The Association merged with the Penal Reform League in 1921 to become the Howard League for Penal Reform. Today, the Howard League is Britain's biggest penal reform organization.

Big Names Advocating for Prison Reform

The basic principle of prison reform has weighed on the minds of both correctional officials and the public alike for centuries.And reform has come a long way in that time. We as a empathetic species have come a long way since punishments of the 19th century where punishments were "an eye for an eye", exacting a more severe punishment than would seem to be indicated by the crime. Global Prison Reform has started to change the system, and in the public sector, large well known names help push for change.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Marion Jones
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

"If you don't equip the people who are in prison with the resources to get an education so that when they get out they can be successful, they're going to wind up right back in prison, or wind up being your neighbor, or worse, maybe marrying your daughter or your son," Stated Marion Jones, the track and field Olympian who  was forced to return her many medals and serve six months in prison. She pled guilty for lying to investigators about taking performance-enhancing drugs Now she's an advocate for prison reform and is joining the on going movement to bring change to the correctional system today. Another big name would be Johnny Cash. A name synonymous with the hard struggle and mellow blues so many of his songs echoed, much like a long prison term. Cash recorded at and fought for many prison reforms and even appeared at the White House with Richard Nixon in 1972. Cash's recordings at Folsom Prison brought attention to the struggles being felt by those inside and made their plight seem real to the outside world. Referring to all convicts as his brothers, Johnny Cash not only mourns their suffering; he also cries out like an Amos against those who have the power to do something about the situation yet fail to act.

Referring to all convicts as his brothers, Johnny Cash not only mourns their suffering; he also cries out like an Amos against those who have the power to do something about the situation yet fail to act.

Read more about by johnny-cash-infocenter.com

Referring to all convicts as his brothers, Johnny Cash not only mourns their suffering; he also cries out like an Amos against those who have the power to do something about the situation yet fail to act.

Read more about by johnny-cash-infocenter.com

Referring to all convicts as his brothers, Johnny Cash not only mourns their suffering; he also cries out like an Amos against those who have the power to do something about the situation yet fail to act.

Read more about by johnny-cash-infocenter.comJo

Johnny Cash and President Richard Nixon meet at the White House in 1972.

Harsh Sentancing + Three Strikes = Deadly Concequences

Most intelligent people know that adding fuel or leaves to a burning fire will increase the size and intensity to that fire, and quite possible become uncontrollable. The Federal and state governments  of our country have been engaged in this deadly game, and with out Prison Reform wrongful convictions will continue to haunt our correctional system for years. 

Wrongful convictions are a reality with the current political and punishment strategy in the U.S.

Over the years there have been many cases in which the verdict was overturned and the inmate was realease upon DNA testing proved his or her innocence. The Innocence Project has come together to attempt to exonerate and cases with the remote possibility of a wrongful conviction and have been quite successful.

 

The Innocence Project has been quite successful, questioning the legitimacy of many cases

This brings the question to light for us as Americans, with out prison reform can we stand idly and knowingly send innocent men and women to prison? The change must come from the inside and reform must be brought to the policy makers and correctional officials. If not, let the statistics speak for themselves.

• Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release.
• The average sentence served by DNA exonerees has been 13 years.
• About 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are members of minority groups.
• In almost 40 percent of DNA exoneration cases, the actual perpetrator has been identified by DNA testing.
• Exonerations have been won in 35 states and Washington, D.C.

 

Third Strike! You're OUT!

In baseball it is easy to receive three strikes and be sent to the bench.  The cartoon tackles the issue of the three strikes law.  It is trying to portray how easy it is to “strike out” in California’s system.  It does not give a fair and equal chance with sentencing.  Petty thefts are being punished with 25 to life.  Cruel and unusual punishment? I’ll let you be the judge. 

The Nation's Harshest Sentencing Policing

California passed the nations harshes sentencing policy in 1994 in the response to a brutal murder of a young girl by a repeat offender.  There are around 8000 inmates in California that received the third strike and most of them are for non-violent crimes.  When the prison population is as high as it is, reform must be taken to keep non-violent third strikers out of prison. 

Three Strikes Reform Act

Reform is being considered for the three strikes law.  The three strikes reform act is under review which will make it illegal to issue a mandatory 25 years to life in prison without considering the seriousness of the crime or if it was a violent crime.  The California law is the only law in America which allows courts to issue this harsh sentence, even for petty theft.  

Deterrence: A Flawed Theory

Deterrence Theory

The idea behind deterrence is that punishment, or the threat of punishment, will keep people away from being involved in criminal activity. All mandatory minimum sentencing laws are based off of deterrence. In order for deterrence to be effective, punishment must be inflicted quickly, be severe, and must be certain for those that commit the crime. 

Celerity
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution gives citizens the right to a speedy trial.  In order for deterrence to be effective, 'speedy' needs to be immediate. In our current system, the process takes too long for General Deterrence  to be have an impact.

Severity
Does the punishment fit the crime? That's a question that needs to be asked when addressing sentencing. In order for deterrence to work, the crime needs to be severe so it will deter people from committing that crime.  That is where mandatory minimum sentencing came into play.  The problem: the severity of the sentences has led to prison overcrowding and a whole slew of issues to countless communities in the United States.

Certainty
The certainty of punishment is the most important factor of deterrence.  It also happens to be the most flawed.  Clearly not all crime in the United States is acknowledged by law enforcement.  Because someone isn't necessarily going to be caught, many people will not be deterred from committing the crime.

Mandatory Minimum Reform is Needed

Population Rising
Since the federal mandatory minimum laws were passed in 1986, federal prison populations have soared to over 200,000 prisoners.  Over half of the prisoners are incarcerated for drug offenses.

What happened to Judicial Discretion?
Mandatory Minimums has stripped judges of their power to use discretion.  This power shift has given the power to prosecutors, who determine the charge. Mandatory minimums also fail to take into account an individual's personal circumstances.  The result is strict, and often, unfair sentences.

There is History of Punishment Reform

America: A History of Mandatory Minimums
Mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug offenses began in 1950 with the Boggs Act. Enhancements were increased on federal penalties for drug law offenses in 1956.  These laws remained on the books for 14 more years until the congress cleared the books on these laws. 

Erasing Mandatory Minimum Sentences: It can be done
In 1970, Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act, which repealed the Boggs Act. The Democratic Congress cited that mandatory minimum sentencing were ineffective in combating.  The Federal Government restored mandatory minimum sentencing in the mid-1980's, but it is possible for sentencing reform.

The War on Drugs' Influence on Strict Sentencing

In order to understand our current punishment system (including its many flaws), one must look at how history has influenced sentencing.  A major contributor to our current mandatory minimum laws is linked to the War on Drugs, which was initiated during the Nixon Administration.  The Public Broadcasting System has a good timeline of the history of the War on Drugs.

Prison overcrowding works against prison reform

Watch NAACP Report Calls Shift in Funding Toward Prisons 'Alarming' on PBS. See more from PBS 

 NEWSHOUR.

A switch in policies and spending

In the 1970’s and 1980’s California was known for its exceptional higher leaning provided by the state, with 3% of state budgets being spent on corrections and 11% spent on college funding. However today, the perception of state colleges in California has declined as there has been a rise to 10% spending on correctional systems and an equal drop to 7% of the state budget on college funding.

So what can be done to alleviate the number of prisoners in the system?

The United States Department of Justice found that in 2005, federal prisons operated at an average of 134 percent capacity and state prisons operated at an average of 107 percent above capacity. American Legislative Exchange Council found that Conditional Post-Convictional Release be the best way to combine offenders serving out their sentences, moving them out of the system, and keeping recidivism rates low.  Conditional Post-Conviction Early Release would rely on performance bonds and security or indemnity agreements to keep participants from committing new crimes and assure their prompt return to custody should they misbehave. 

The Conditional Post-Conviction Release would work as follows:

• Legislatively defined participants would be chosen
  by parole officials at the penitentiary level and
  judges at the trial level (hereafter referred to as
  releasing authorities).
  
  
  
  
• Participants would be released from confinement
  under the terms and conditions of a performance
  bond. The bond would require a surety, (financial
  guarantor) by a qualified insurance company. The
  terms and conditions of the performance bond
  would have to be fully met at all times in order for
  the participant to remain in society.
  
  
   
  
  
• Failure of the releasee to meet numerous
  requirements such as house arrest, regular drug
  testing, recovery program involvement, mandatory
  check-in requirements, non-interference with
  witnesses or victims, maintenance of gainful
  employment, payment of restitution, and no
  subsequent arrests or any additional requirements
  would obligate the surety to promptly return
  the releasee to custody thus safeguarding the 
  community. Failure to so perform would subject the
  surety to full financial penalty under the bond.
  
  
  • Persons in the participant’s release environment,
  such as parents and guardians, would voluntarily
  sign “agreements of indemnity” whereby they,
  along with the individual would have a monetary
  incentive, as indemnitors to the surety, to encourage
  compliance by the participant. If there is a violation
  of the bond, the family as well as the offender
  would be drawn into the circle of responsibility.
  
  
  • Upon the breach of any single condition of release,
  the bond could be revoked by the court, a warrant
  would be issued and the participant re-incarcerated, and the
  surety required to pay a financial penalty to the state
  in the alternative.