The “three strikes” law came to light in the 1990’s when crime rates were through the roof. This law states that the sentencing for an individual whom has already been convicted of two or more violent crimes is significantly increased. While this law seems to have a logical reasoning on ways to lower violent crimes being committed, there are many issues people have with it.
The main argument that many people have, in disagreement with this law, is that it doesn’t let the punishment fit the crime. In the constitution it is important that the punishments fit the crime committed. For example, if I was to steal lipstick from a convenience store, cutting off my hand would be a wildly extreme punishment. The idea of committing relatively minor offenses repeatedly and not being charged with an outrageous punishment like life in prison is called “proportionality”. “Proportionality” is represented in the Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It basically states that we can’t use excessive punishments for the crimes committed. When thinking about this and the three strike rule, the supporters of this law believe that since the crimes have continuously been committed, more retribution is required to further deter the criminals. While individuals whom don’t support the three strike law (myself included) believe that once a criminal has committed a crime the court should focus their attention on giving a fair sentence to that specific crime.
By knocking out this law we can better follow the Eighth Amendment. Following this Amendment more closely will help many individuals whom are being sentenced years in prison of an astray of mild violent offenses like bar fights.
Please comment your opinion on whether or not you believe the three strike law should be diminished!