Three Strike Laws, Essay Example

Three -strikes laws states that offenders of the third felony should receive long sentences or even life imprisonment. However, this move does not seem to fulfill the real purpose of deterrence to crimes as stated in the imprisonment rationales. The fact that one has repeatedly committed the same offence is not a justification to lengthen his/ her imprisonment period. The offender could be having personal problems that are making him/her to repeat the same offence. Psychological problems could be behind the habit or the previous imprisonment of the offender did not aim at correcting him/her. Sentencing strategy requires that prisoners are only restrained but not punished. This implies that administering a long sentence against an offender will imply that the criterion is being violated. Long sentences will mean punishment rather than restrain.

Long term imprisonment is not directly equivalent to the offence committed. An example is the incidence of Michael Wayne Riggs who was sentenced for 25 years of an offence that involved stealing pills because of his past criminal record. The sentence is not equivalent to his immediate offence implying that there was a violation of a prison criterion.

Three -strikes laws are not economically efficient. This is because prisons are also meant to release productive individuals back to the society. Upholding these individuals for that long time does not prove this idea. More government funding will be incurred to sustain these long serving prisoners instead they could be released contribute to the economy of the state and country. The growing numbers of three- strikes offenders in prisons will overcrowd the prisons for no great reasons. The overcrowding of prisons will simply call for control measures that are also incurred in the state’s budget.  Three strikes laws can be viewed as detrimental to the economy and need not to be adopted.