By Emily Ling
California, like many states, is so focused on locking away its criminals that it forgets the rehabilitation part. The “three strikes law” in California counts any minor felony as a third strike. This means that people are, depending on their previous convictions, being locked away for a long time because they were caught in possession of a little marijuana. Although it may be argued that the “three strikes laws” has reduced crime in California, some people have lost their right to freedom for a long period of time because they committed a small crime.
States need to weigh these two side when considering whether or nor they should keep the law. However, even if they should decide to keep the law, judges need to consider the specific nature of the third and final strike for every person before handing the sentence. Is it really ideal for people to be put away for 25 years to life for small felonies committed on their third strike? The judges should take the time to think this through. The judge has someone’s life in his hands. The three strikes law needs to be redefined to separate those who are committing less harmful crimes and those who definitely need to be locked up.
At the same time, the state need to make more of an effort to rehabilitate all but the most hardened of criminals. Instead of leaving ex-convicts to wait and be charged with their third strike, the government needs programs that help prevent people from even reaching that point.
Unfortunately due to the budget cuts, these programs are becoming more and more scarce. It would be in the state’s best interest to reach offenders early on in their “criminal careers” and steer their life in another direction. We should be allocating our budget more toward these programs instead of paying the equivalent cost of a college education for each prisoner’s annual room and board. The state’s budget for locking up prisoners rises by nine percent annually, compared to the state’s budget on education, which only rises by five percent. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, California will spend 15.4 billion incarcerating prisoners as opposed to 15.3 billion educating children.
If more money is spent on helping ex-convicts in the long run we will hopefully have less people entering the prison system, lower crime rates and have to spend less money on the prison system in general. The Californian government should not focus on penalizing people for wrongdoing. Instead, they should also dedicate time and money to educate first-time offenders on how to live successful lives and make a living without succumbing to a life of crime.
In jail, and after jail, there should more programs that teach prisoners how to exist and be part of the working world. Currently, prison environments educate offenders how to better commit crimes. Because prison is completely different from outside life, when prisoners finally get out of jail they often find it difficult to adapt to life in the real world. They find it nearly impossible to find jobs and support themselves, especially because many businesses refuse to hire ex-convicts. This is especially true in the horrible economy we are living in right now.
In other cases, when prisoners leave prison, they find that they can’t pay their bills with the petty jobs available to them, especially when compared to the money that they could make if they returned to illegal activities. This leads them to turn back to their previous lifestyle that landed them in jail in the first place.
Programs that teach prisoners on how to be contributing members of society need to be funded by the state. The state should have jobs set aside specifically for ex-convicts that offer them a fair salary while also training them in the process. The Orange County Public Defender’s Office runs a “New Leaf Program,” which assists those who are seeking a fresh start and improved opportunities for employment, professional licensing or consumer credit. This is exactly the kind of program that we need to endorse in order to assist these prisoners to help them cross the bridge into the real world.
The major concern is that people who are committing a minor third felony will have their lives stripped away from them. Extreme attention needs to be paid to criminals facing their third strike in making sure a just punishment is applied to them. States such as California need to spend money in rehabilitation programs in order to stop people from falling into a cycle of crime and arm ex-convicts with the tools that will ensure a successful life.
Please send comments and letters to the editor to newuopinion@gmail.com. Include your name, year and major.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Related posts:
- Criminology Professor Theorizes on Jail System
- Locking Down on Captive Labor: California Prison Reform
- Balls & Strikes: the Anteaters, Jered Weaver, A-Rod & More
- Union Strikes For Higher Wages
- TA Strikes Come at a Bad Time
New University is the official UCI campus newspaper since 1968.
Someone Says:
Hello,
The Three-Strikes Law should be limited to serious/violent cases; the money saved like this could be invested in healthcare, social and education programs, which is MUCH BETTER AND MORE USEFUL than paying for the lifetime imprisonment of a pizza thief.
There is NO need to be afraid of a government-supported healthcare system: Practically ALL developed countries in the world have one, and the systems work well, almost all citizens are protected in some way by them!
For Europeans (like me), it is difficult to believe that about 50 million Americans have NO medical insurance, and that many Americans are really AGAINST healthcare programs (WHY do you want to pay for the lifetime imprisonment of a pizza thief, but not for a health insurance for you and your children???)
The death penalty should be abolished: It is NOT A DETERRENT AT ALL (see Texas with its over 400 executions!!!), INNOCENT EXECUTED PEOPLE CANNOT BE BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE, it is mostly used for POOR and MINORITY people who cannot afford a good defense (and how neutral, objective, and competent is a jury of average citizens???), it is INCOMPATIBLE WITH MODERN INDUSTRIALIZED DEMOCRACIES (only the USA, Singapore, Japan [Keiko Chiba, the new Justice Minister, wants discusion/moratorium/abolition], and–with a JUST PROLONGED moratorium–South Korea still have it).
This year, about 10 US States have wanted to abolish the death penalty, and it is a shame that so far ONLY ONE, NEW MEXICO, has really done so.
In Connecticut, people WANTED to abolish it, but Governor RELL did NOT sign the bill. The ILLINOIS moratorium is a first step in the right direction, but a full abolishment would be better. Kansas and New Hampshire have had no executions since the reintroduction of the death penalty, but they have no official moratorium either, so the future is unclear.
I hope many US States and other countries will follow New Mexico’s example.
Many greetings,
Someone
Posted on November 2nd, 2009 at 6:56 am
Mac Says:
This is in response to the article and “someone’s” post.
First off, I completely support the 3 strikes rule. In my opinion, if someone goes to jail, and commits a crime immediately upon release, they obviously didn’t learn their lesson. If they continue to commit crimes, I think they should be put away for longer. If you’re late to work, most of the time you’ll get a warning. If you keep being late despite being warned, you get fired. I don’t see why the criminal justice system should be any different.
Secondly, nowhere in the article does it mention the government-supported health care. There’s no reason to bring it up in a completely unrelated article, other than to spout your opinions. I think an article regarding health care might have been a better outlet to talk about that (though this is my first time on this site, I was trying to find something else and found this article, so that sort of thing might be common place on this site. If so, disregard this paragraph…).
Thirdly, unless you’re a mind reader, it is impossible to prove that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Texas is very fond of their death penalty, and they have a lot of crimes that can get the death penalty, hence the amount of executions. That does not mean that the death penalty is not a deterrent. The death penalty is used for particularly heinous crimes, regardless of the perpetrators social standing. I would almost be willing to guarantee that just as many middle-class white people get the death penalty as the poor and minorities. If there are more poor and minorities getting the death penalty, then it could well be that those are the groups that are committing those heinous crimes. The police in a town near me are constantly getting accused of racism because most of the people they arrest are minorities. The problem is that 70-80% of the towns inhabitants are minorities. Therefore it stands to reason that, being the majority of the population, the majority of the crimes would be committed by said minorities. It’s not quite so simple as assuming that they get the death penalty more because they can’t afford a good defense. Some of the best defense lawyers in the country started out as public defenders. It’s not like they were terrible when they were PD’s, then got good when they went to private practice…
As for jury neutrality, the courts have methods for dealing with that. If the defense does not think the jury will be neutral and unbiased, they can request a change of venue, to move the trial to a new location. They can also appeal the decision because they feel the jury was biased. Also, if the jury convicts someone who the prosecution did not properly prove to be guilty, the judge can essentially throw out their decision and acquit the defendant. That rarely happens, because the judges really aren’t supposed to do that, but it has happened. That said, there are occasions when the jury is not neutral. I heard of at least one case where the prosecutor proved the case indisputably, but the jury acquit the defendant on the sole basis that they didn’t like the prosecutor. People accused of tax related crimes are often acquitted, because the jury feels that this is their chance to “stick it” to the IRS. In the sake of fairness, I know that the same thing happens in reverse (the defendant gets convicted by a unbiased jury). Overall however, it is a very effective system. Like any system, innocent people do get convicted, just like MANY guilty people are acquitted. It’s the nature of the beast, though the cases of the innocent being falsely convicted are becoming less common.
And finally, in regards to rehabilitation…. The politicians are really the only people who actually think that rehabilitation works. It may work for a small percentage of prisoners, usually those that aren’t bad people, they just made mistakes. But talk to any police officer, corrections officer, or just about anyone actually involved in the criminal justice system, and they’ll tell you that rehabilitation rarely works, even in areas that have extensive rehabilitation programs. At very least most prisons have libraries that contain books on all sorts of topics (psychology, english, automotives, etc.) for the prisoners to better themselves. Prisoners can get their GED’s in prison. All but the highest security prisons allow the prisoners to work during the day, if they should choose to. Some prisons allow the prisoners to take classes to learn technical skills. As it is, i’ve heard of people who commit repeated crimes specifically to go back to prison, because they had a better standard of living in prison then outside. Despite all of these rehabilitation efforts, however, it’s often the exact same people commiting the crimes. I’m a criminal justice student, and this is the sort of stuff i’ve been studying. As I said, in the majority of cases rehabilitation does not work.
Posted on November 12th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Jack shuck Says:
I am very interested in your article but I believe that not all people can just be put in a class and be taught what is right and wrong with society. Apparently if these people can’t understand that they can break the law, do you want them living next to you? I think that California’s view is a little harsher than most but honestly if you don’t prevent it from happening then you will ultimatly have a worse problem in the end. Is it true that a person should get 25 years for a small possession charge? No, but they should not break the law three times. We are not talking speeding tickets that everyone just gets, we are talking about arrestable offenses, and the save everyone theory does not work, some people do need to taken out of society and locked away, if they can change then give them the time needed to do it. If you attempt to save everyone and it fails, I just hope that when they snap, they live closer to you then me.
Posted on November 17th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
a parent says: Says:
Hard working people pay more than enough in taxes for criminals, so to provide more money for these offenders is plain stupid. Our government can not afford to pay for these offenders to “hopefully” change, and they shouldn’t. If these people who repeat, and repeat serious crimes can not learn to quit, thats their personal problem, and they should just sit in prison. It’s not the responsibility for the rest of us, law abiding citizens to “fix” them. These offenders are not forced to offend, most of them are adults, this is a choice they’re making for themselves. We can not jeopardize innocent people’s lives by releasing these dangerous people from prison. We hear way too many stories about innocent children being abducted and killed by someone who was recently charged with rape 3 years back and kidnapping 8 years back. The three strike rule is a great law! It should be the law in all states. Three chances is more than enough chances to correct yourself and change. Im pretty sure everyone who dissagree’s would change their minds if their child or a loved one was kidnapped, raped or seriously assulted!!
Posted on January 20th, 2010 at 12:14 pm