![]() |
Home | Articles | Book Page | Links | Mike's Corner | Search | Studies | Contact Us |
not give their concepts credence. I look at results. The logic rule of Ockham's Razor merits emphasis: when there are a number of possible explanations for a result, the simplest explanation is most probably correct.6 |
HAS THREE STRIKES BEEN SUCCESSFUL |
I. It identifies career criminals. The conclusion would appear inescapable that the legal restrictions on eligibility for sentencing as a second or third strike offender are extremely narrow and focus on those with a significant criminal history. Each of these offenders has a substantial record and on average has numerous felony convictions in addition to their prior serious and violent felony convictions. These individuals have not been successfully deterred by the existence of criminal sanctions. They have not been deterred in their criminal behavior as evidenced by their new felony conviction. It is clear these individuals are career criminals. |
II. It provides a means to allow sentencing to be used to address crime. Rather than focus on individual sentences for different crimes, Three Strikes focuses on the commission of crime by those who are career criminals. It provides for a sentencing formula to be used that targets career criminals and promotes a policy determination of removing career criminals from our streets. |
III. It provides for a more uniform disposition of criminal cases. Three Strikes has substantially reduced sentencing and case disposition disparity by providing a uniform policy for certain offenders. The sentencing structure of Three Strikes encourages more uniform disposition by providing clear legislative guidelines. It requires that individuals who have one prior serious and violent felony conviction and commit a new felony to receive a mandatory prison commitment that doubles the term for their new "triggering offense." It requires that individuals who have a record of two prior serious or violent |
6William Ockham (1285?-1349) English scholastic philosopher who employed the principle of assuming as little as possible to explain a fact. |
41 Next Page |
Back the Badge |