1 Brown v. Board of Education
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court, which overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This victory paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement.
2 Are Three-Strikes Laws Fair and Effective?
by Jenny Murphy
Monday, June 12, 2000
Nation-wide attention was focused on so-called three-strikes laws in 1994 when California voters approved an initiative mandating prison terms of 25-years-to-life for defendants convicted of a third felony. The California law also doubles minimum terms for second time offenders. The vote came in the wake of the widely publicized 1993 murder of 12-year old Polly Klaas, whose killer was a paroled felon. Washington State adopted a three-strikes law in 1993, and 22 other states have followed suit. Congress passed a federal version in 1994.
In March 1999 the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to California's three-strikes law brought by a man sentenced to 25 years to life under the law for stealing a bottle of vitamins. The justices ruled that lower courts should rule on the controversial law before it is brought before the Supreme Court.
While some politicians hailed the three-strikes laws as the ultimate get-tough-on-crime measure, others criticized the laws for contributing to prison overcrowding. If a defendant is convicted of a third felony, judges in three-strikes states are required to issue a 25-year plus sentence, even if the third felony was a minor offense such as shoplifting. Also, studies of three-strikes laws have shown that African-Americans are disproportionately affected by the policy.
On One Hand...
Many of the defendants sent to jail under three-strikes laws are non-violent repeat offenders. The original intent of the law was the stop violent criminals, but the result has been that criminals with a history of minor offenses, such as petty theft or drug dealing, are being sent away for longer terms than criminals who commit violent acts. The prison population has grown so much that most are already filled beyond capacity and many more prisons need to be built; tax payers will have to foot the bill. Three-strikes laws are not effective crime prevention measures, they are unnecessarily harsh sentencing guidelines that punish harmless petty criminals and overcrowd our prisons.
On the Other Hand...
If a criminal does not reform after two felony convictions, it is unlikely that he or she ever will. Three-strikes laws are effective because they target these repeat offenders who have proven unable to change their criminal behavior. The mandated 25 years-to-life sentences for third time offenders keep repeat criminals off the street, and the threat of such a long sentence may stop a two-time offenders from committing a third felony. Tough-on-crime laws like this have contributed to the nation-wide drop in crime rates over the past decade. Three-strike laws can help reduce the prison population by serving as a deterrent to potential repeat criminals.
California has convicted 4,468 offenders on third strikes since 1994.
There are 2 million people behind bars in the U.S., including local jails--twice as many as a decade ago.
Approximately 2,700 "third strikers" received at least a 25 years-to-life sentence for nonviolent and non-serious offenses.
In California, nearly 75 percent of 2nd strikes and 50 percent of 3rd strikes are for nonviolent and non-serious offenses.
The most common charges leveled against third-strike criminals are drugs, theft and burglary.
3 Three Strikes Rule
Three Strikes And You're Out
Criminal defense attorneys are ready and available to help you with your criminal charge, especially if the crime with which you are being charged could be your third strike, resulting in prison for life without the possibility of parole. Can you afford for this to happen to you? Contact a LawInfo Lead Counsel qualified criminal law lawyer experienced with your state’s three-strike laws to discuss your specific legal claim.
The United States is locking up people at an unprecedented rate. There are now 1.75 million people in state and federal prisons in the U.S., up from 1 million people just four years ago. The incarceration of people has been accelerated through the enactment of so-called "three-strikes and you're out" legislation. Between 1993 and 1995, 26 states and the federal government passed "three strikes" laws in response to public outrage over such cases as the 1993 kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas by a paroled repeat offender.
Under the federal Three Strikes rule, now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), the defendant receives mandatory life imprisonment if he or she:
Is convicted in federal court of a serious violent felony; and
Has two or more prior convictions in federal or state courts, where at least one of which is a serious violent felony. The other prior offense may be a serious drug offense.
Under the statute, a serious violent felony includes murder, manslaughter, sex offenses, kidnapping, robbery, and any offense punishable by 10 years or more which includes as an element the use of force or that, by its nature, involves a significant risk of force. The statute also enumerates certain non-qualifying felonies, including unarmed robbery offenses and arsons that posed no threat to human life.
Unlike the federal laws, the three-strikes laws vary by quite a bit from state to state. However, under all federal and state three-strikes law if someone is convicted of a crime three times, there is no judiciary discretion in sentencing these repeat offenders. Judicial discretion means that the judge decides the length and severity of the sentence for the convicted defendant based on whatever criteria he or she considers relevant (like, severity of the crime, the defendant’s character, social ties, etc). Instead, regardless of any extenuating circumstances, and regardless of whether the judge believes the criminal can be rehabilitated, the criminal must go to jail for life without the possibility of parole.
The State of California is noted to have the harshest three-strikes laws. Existing law classifies some felonies, as "violent" or "serious." California’s "three Strikes and you’re out" law mandates that if a person has two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions, the sentence for any additional felony conviction (not just serious or violent) is 25 years to life.
More than 7,000 people have been sent to California's prisons with life sentences under the state's three-strikes law. In 350 of those cases, the third crime the defendant committed was a minor offense, including the case of Leandro Andrade who was caught shoplifting children’s videos twice within two weeks at K-Mart stores in Southern California in 1995. The tapes Andrade stole were worth approximately $1.60. Such petty thefts (under $400) are ordinarily misdemeanors punishable by up to six months in jail. But Andrade had a record of burglaries and marijuana possession from years before. As a result of California's tough three-strikes law, Andrade’s new petty thefts were treated as felonies. Upon his conviction, the judge sentenced him to 50 years to life in prison.
p/s policy making
Introduction
Policy making is: 'the process by which governments translate their political vision into programmes and actions to deliver 'outcomes' - desired changes in the real world'. (Modernising Government White Paper, 1999)
This concern with achieving real changes in people's lives is reflected in the Government's overall strategy for improving public services published in March 2002 (Reforming our public services: principles into practice - pdf, 4082kb) [No 10 website]
Promoting good practice in policy making is fundamental to the delivery of quality outcomes for citizens and to the realisation of public sector reform.
Policy makers should have available to them the widest and latest information on research and best practice and all decisions should be demonstrably rooted in this knowledge.
The features of good policy-making are considered in detail in Better Policy-Making (pdf, 1120kb) [CMPS website] and Professional Policy-Making for the 21st Century (pdf)
In addition, the National School of Government offers a wide range of courses on various aspects of policy making
Better Policy Making on Policy Hub
The International Comparisons in Policy Making Toolkit provides help and guidance in the use of international comparisons in policy making.
Better Regulation Executive have published a guidance checklist for policy makers on impact assessment and appraisal.
The Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland have produced a very helpful policy toolkit for the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
This area also includes a section proving links to guidance, reports and projects on risk management
The following pages provide links to a variety of sources and initiatives (websites, networks, databases, reports etc) that support better policy making. The nine features of policy making, identified in Professional policy making for the twenty first century (pdf, 321kb), published by the Cabinet Office Strategic Policy Team in 1999, have been used as a framework for linking to these. Use the links below to navigate to the page of your choice:
Forward Looking - Defining policy outcomes and taking a long term view
Outward Looking - Taking account of the national, European and international situation; learning from the experience of other countries; recognising regional variations.
Innovative, Flexible - Questioning established ways of dealing with things, encouraging new and creative ideas, identifying and managing risk.
Joined Up - Looking beyond institutional boundaries; setting cross-cutting objectives; defining and communicating joint working arrangements across departments; ensuring that implementation is part of the policy process.
Inclusive - Consulting those responsible for implementation and those affected by the policy; carrying out an impact assessment
Evidence based - Basing policy decisions and advice upon the best available evidence from a wide range of sources; ensuring that evidence is available in an accessible and meaningful form.
Evaluated - Systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of policy is built into the policy making process.
Reviews - Existing/established policy is constantly reviewed to ensure it is really dealing with problems it was designed to solve.
Lessons learned - Learning from experience of what works and what does not
The Improving Delivery area of Policy Hub provides more detail on initiatives and projects to improve the implementation and delivery of policy and examples of successful delivery.
No comments:
Post a Comment