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.