Latest research have indicated that those legal guidelines have not yielded outcomes consistent with the preliminary hype. However, Three Strikes law appears to have modestly encouraged crime reductions in a few states. According to the crime scholar Franklin Zimring, “Americans were angry because despite having put a record number of people in prison, crime still seems out of control”. Los Angeles district attorney opposed the idea of “three strikes and you are out” law, as he believed it would put so many low level offenders in prison for life and it will a waste of money.
Should Three Strikes guidelines be standardized across all states?
The Three Strikes law ended up in populating the prisons which are grossly over crowded mostly with the petty thieves. Some of the very extreme cases encountered were the case of a thief involved in pizza and another one in bicycle robbery, but because of the previous criminal records they got 25 years of life sentence in prison. This Three Strikes law was initiated to a very good cause to give the security to the people so that they can live freely without any fear, but this law also has many flaws. Three strikes guidelines should only be standardized across those states where the offensive and big crime rates are high.
Should victim input be taken into consideration when law is created?
“The worst way to enact a law is to do it in an emotional and angry response”. This shows that a victim input if in the condition of anger and emotion, it will impact on a number of lives that will suffer and caught against the law. Just like in Three Strikes law, a part from serious crime offenders, small and petty crime offenders are also serving 25 years of life sentence, let’s say for just stealing a $100 thing. The impact on victim input can be big on the society.