A man who is serving a jail sentence of 25 years to life because he was caught shoplifting. Because he had prior convictions, the shoplifting charge made his new petty crime "unsteady" under the Three Strikes Law. He is now doing 25 years to life in prison. Is his sentence justified? .
When Californians enacted a Three Strikes law in 1994, they never intended to lock up someone who steals pizza or cake (real life situations) for 25 years to life. The objective of the Three Strikes Law was represented as an effort to put potential murderers, rapists, and hard-core violent criminals in prison for a long time. Unfortunately, the law includes many individuals who have committed nuisance offenses and who are unlikely to be violent. Californians should revisit the operation of this law and restore reasonable judgment to prosecutors and judges. Our Three Strikes laws need to focus our state's limited resources on serious and violent felonies, not on insignificant crimes. I think we should change our Three Strikes law and keep them tough, but also make the law fair and just. .
Under the Three Strikes Law, if a person has one previous violent or serious felony conviction, such as theft of a bicycle from a garage, he/she is sentenced to twice the term prescribed by law for each new felony . Furthermore, if a person has two prior violent or serious convictions, he/she is sentenced to a term of 25 years to life in prison for each new felony conviction, whether or not they are violent or serious offenses, each new offense must be served consecutively . The 3-Strikes law greatly exceeds its original objective. Though the law was intended to prevent violent crime, 51 percent of third-strike offenses have been nonviolent crimes against property or drug crimes, according to the Legislative Analyst's office . Hence, nearly two-thirds of second strike offenses (65.9 %) have been nonviolent drug or property crimes .
