|
In the United States, habitual offender laws (commonly referred to as three-strikes laws) are statutes enacted by state governments which mandate courts to impose harsher sentences on those convicted of an offense if they have been previously convicted of two prior serious criminal offenses. They are designed to incapacitate those more likely to commit crime. Twenty-four states have some form of "three-strikes" law. A person accused under such laws is referred to in a few states (notably Connecticut and Kansas) as a "persistent offender", while Missouri uses the unique term "prior and persistent offender". In most jurisdictions, only crimes at the felony level qualify as serious offenses; however, misdemeanor offenses previously could qualify for application of the three-strikes law in California, whose application has been the subject of controversy. This changed after Proposition 36 passed in 2012, that meant it had to be a serious or violent felony. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 ruled "three strikes" to be unconstitutional. The popular name of these laws, three-strikes laws, comes from baseball, where a batter is permitted two strikes before striking out on the third. The three-strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence. ==History== The practice of imposing longer prison sentences on repeat offenders (versus first-time offenders who commit the same crime) is nothing new, as judges often take into consideration prior offenses when sentencing. However, there is a more recent history of mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders. For example, New York State had a long-standing ''Persistent Felony Offender'' law dating back to the early 20th century (partially ruled unconstitutional in 2010, but reaffirmed ''en banc'' shortly after). But such sentences were not compulsory in each case, and judges had much more discretion as to what term of incarceration should be imposed. The first true "three-strikes" law was passed in 1993, when Washington state voters approved Initiative 593. California passed its own in 1994, when their voters passed Proposition 184〔(proposition 184 at Ballotpedia )〕 by an overwhelming majority, with 72% in favor and 28% against. The initiative proposed to the voters had the title of ''Three Strikes and You're Out'', referring to ''de facto'' life imprisonment after being convicted of three violent or serious felonies which are listed under California Penal Code section 1192.7.〔The substantive provisions of Proposition 184 are codified in California Penal Code Sections (667(e)(2)(A)(ii) ) and (1170.12(c)(2)(A)(ii) ).〕 Its successful passing has been primarily attributed to the kidnapping, rape and murder of 12 year-old, Polly Klaas. By a repeat violent offender. The concept swiftly spread to other states, but none of them chose to adopt a law as sweeping as California's. By 2004, twenty-six states and the federal government had laws that satisfy the general criteria for designation as "three-strikes" statutes — namely, that a third felony conviction brings a sentence of 20 to life where 20 years must be served before becoming parole eligible. After the hype leading to the institution of these laws across the country, it soon became apparent that they were not bringing the results the public expected. Data shows that the laws didn’t necessarily reduce violent crime, but instead, in states such as California where a "strike" did not have to be a violent felony, put away more “criminals” for non-violent and petty crimes, dramatically raising the prison population. This led to the drastic reduction of the power of the Three-Strikes Law in California in 2012 by approval of Proposition 36. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Three-strikes law」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|