Habitual offender statures employed in an attempt to combat long life criminals tend to effectively solve the issue of future crime. For instance, as presented in Ewing v. California's case, Gray Ewing had been caught after attempts to steal three golf clubs. Nevertheless, his background had several similar convictions that attracted his prosecution. Several misdemeanor results t felonies that provoke citizen’s frustrations over crime. In return, to curb lifelong criminals, the statures are employed for criminals who have a record of several misdemeanors that pose a challenge. If Ewing’s case would not be considered, probably he could have improved his stealing tactics and become a huge felonious. Furthermore, habitual offender statures increase the chances of imprisonment of defendants who have a record of violent offenses. Therefore, the identified facts prove the effectiveness of the statures in controlling future crime. Numerous reasons support the effectiveness of the habitual offender statures also known as Three Strikes laws. First, the statures protect society by isolating the defendant. In most cases, perpetrators would repeatedly engage in violent crimes and serious felonies that would pose a threat to society (Lewis, 2003). Although the court offers trials for misdemeanor violations subjecting the offender into conventional punishment when an offender repeats serious offenses need to be handled carefully and lawfully. The only approach to handle that is the employment of the statures. Additionally, the statures work following the reduced crime rates in the judicial systems that have employed the Three Strikes laws in the law enforcement sector. When offenders with a background of misdemeanors are aware of the next step that would be taken if they repeatedly perform a crime, they tend to avoid such cases. For instance, Ewing’s case affirms that cases of repeated felonies are punished with 25 years or life imprisonment. In return, the statures decline the rate of crime cases hence improving the effectiveness of the law (Lewis, 2003). Nevertheless, the statures would not work following the cons that characterize it as an approach to prevent life long criminal cases. First, habitual offender statures are considered unfair comparing with the actual crime committed. For instance, Ewing’s case of stealing club golfs is logically not worth 25 years imprisonment. Furthermore, the background of a misdemeanor is not worth life imprisonment (Peck, 2004). In most cases, the court is responsible for determining the weight of misdemeanor and the seriousness that is worth being considered as a felony. Therefore, such petty offenses and the ruling is considered disproportionate and unusual punishment. The laws employed for the standing made regarding the felonies are unevenly employed since they reflect on certain cases that might pose a threat future. For instance, Three Strikes laws are considered for crimes that pose a challenge or a violent crime. However, in other cases, the standings might not work since they might make an innocent person to end up in jail following the conviction of minor wrongdoings. Although the approach is relevant for public safety, it will increase the population in jails and a high number of inmates who would otherwise be serving under parole (Peck, 2004). In addition, the standing is subject to variations in sentencing, which does not match the crime being convicted against. Logically, the statures would not work in the American judicial system on the basis of justice. Although it is an effective approach to combat crime, the punishment is relatively unusual. In centrally, the judicial system should consider conventional punishments that would effectively deter the repeated misdemeanor. However, based on the weight of criminal offense, the law should be considered and effectively be employed to handle offenders who commit violent or serious crimes. In conclusion, the statures described are effective for combating future lifelong crime but the seriousness of the crimes should be put into consideration for public safety.
References
Lewis, S. J. (2003). The Cruel and Unusual Reality of California's Three Strikes Law: Ewing v. California and the Narrowing of the Eighth Amendment's Proportionality Principle. Denv. UL Rev. , 81 , 519.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Peck, R. C. (2004). Ewing v. California: Upholding California's Three Strikes Law. Pepp. L. Rev. , 32 , 191.
