In the fight against crime, there are three main approaches - increased penalties, crime prevention through a variety of techniques to adapt socially disadvantaged individuals and the creation of favorable conditions for the self-regulation of crime through the unleashing of people hand in matters of self-defense. Practice shows quite clearly that the latter method is the most effective, but it does not mean that these approaches are at least in some contradiction to each other.
In many states in the USA legal doctrine of "three-strikes law" is implemented and it provides virtually a life sentence without parole in the case of a third violent crime, even if it is not very heavy. This measure actually allows rescue society from repeat offenders who do not want to be corrected. This law requires judges to impose extremely harsh sentences for persons convicted for the third time. The idea is that a person may commit another crime by mistake, by a youth or group. Two crimes already suggest a pattern. Third accurately exposes repeat offenders who do not deserve leniency.
According to this law, the penalty for repeat offenses can range from 15-25 years to life. For example, the defendant, who was convicted of 2 burglaries in the teens 20 years ago, will be applied three-strikes law, even if he is now accused only of petty theft or possession of prohibited substances. There are some examples of the three-strikes law, even before the introduction of the definition of total video face fixation: criminals were sentenced to 25 or more years in prison for crimes such as petty theft at the Golf Club (Gary Ewing), theft of nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade) and stealing pizza from a group of children (Devon Jerry Williams). Even in one of the high-profile cases, Kevin Weber was sentenced to 26 years for the theft of four cheap chocolate cookies.
During the 10 years before the adoption of the law in California, the number of prisoners increased by 400%, and for 10 years after its adoption only by 25.5%, so it is a clear indicator of the effectiveness of this measure. Positive changes in most states can be attributed to the liberalization of arms trafficking, but in California, where it is practically not observed, the positive changes in the dynamics of crime can be attributed to the implementation of this measure, which tightens responsibility of recidivists.
Despite the fact that among the vast majority of offenders are men, but women by severity of their identity and committing crimes are not inferior, but sometimes superior to men. Having children does not deter this kind of women from crime. Women-recidivists often aspire to become mothers to early release from prison. "Three-strikes laws" excludes this possibility, because its action is equally evident with respect to both men and women.
However, women relapse is negligible. He is twice lower than the percentage of women offenders in general. However, women-recidivists are more socially running group (alcoholism, homelessness, moral degradation, and so on) than male recidivists. Thus, the "three-strikes law" is their greater motivation for the formation of the right path, than for men.
Reference list
Kieso, W. D. (2005). Unjust Sentencing and the California Three Strikes Law. New York: LFB Scholarly Pub.
Walsh, J. E. (2007). Three Strikes Laws. California: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Marshall, P. (2002). Three-strikes Laws: Are They Too Harsh? Washington: Congressional Quarterly.
SchWeber, C. & Feinman, C. (1984). Criminal Justice, Politics, and Women: The Aftermath of Legally Mandated Change. Florence: Psychology Press.
