Do "Three-Strikes" Sentencing Laws to crime really works?

Solution Preview

11 Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev. 65 (1999-2000) Striking out: The Failure of California's Three Strikes and You're out Law

9 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 557 (1999-2000) No Joy in Mudville Tonight: The Impact of Three Strike Laws on State and Federal Corrections Policy, Resources, and Crime Control

https://www.aclu.org/other/10-reasons-oppose-3-strikes-youre-out?redirect=10-reasons-oppose-3-strikes-youre-out

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/Striking_Out_Californias_Three_Strikes_And_Youre_Out_Law_Has_Not_Reduced_Violent_Crime.pdf

Do "Three-Strikes" Sentencing Laws to crime really works? I need a reflection paper that consist of at least 1200 words, an abstract, peer-viewed references, and power points that highlight my paper.

The fact that the criminal justice system has proven to be a racially unjust system that issues "justice" unequally while targeting historically marginalized groups that have been discriminated against within America is the reality associated with the U.S. criminal justice system. This is also the fact associated with the so-called "Three-Strikes" law, which was initially set up with good intentions but quickly became another tool to use for discrimination against Blacks and Hispanics. The use of this law was initially a response to a violent rape and murder of a young child in California. The offender, was a white male who had previously been convicted of sexually assaulting and raping other people in the past, yet he had been paroled several times. To address this issue, lawmakers decided to pass legislation that would result in three strikes for violent offenders before they would be sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

The key term in this initial legislation, which passed, is violent offenders, as these offenders were thought to be worthy of only three ...