|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
... ” Has it really worked? ...
I really wanted to frame this discussion in the perspective of the fifties novel idea of our society, using this to insert my own bias into the discussion. ... The latest controversy in our judicial system today is the: “Three strikes your out” law. ... Lest we forget, in baseball it’s three strikes and your out…until your next at bat. Here it’s three strike, and your out…for good. ...
Eugene Methvin is a ardent three strikes supporter. ... Therefore, following this reasoning, if we catch a lot of these repeat offenders at an early age via the “three strikes your out” policy, we remove them from the streets, and less crime is the result. ... All told Methvin lays out a compelling case for using the three strikes policy to remove certain committed psychopaths from our society permanently. What he doesn’t do is convince me why we should take away the discretionary powers of our court system by making three strikes a law, rather than just give the judge this power as an option.
Professor of criminal justice David Shichor takes issue with Methvin, and three strikes on several fronts. He coyly refers to three strikes as: “the McDonaldization of penology.” Shichor, being a criminal justice professor, cites his own experience in many instances, and points out that under three strikes our system can easily become unfair, and wrought with bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Approximate Word count = 1081
Approximate Pages = 4.3
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|