Issues of Diversity in Criminal Justice

Ewing vs. California is a case that focuses specifically on California’s “Three Strikes Law”. California’s “Three Strikes Law” challenges the Eighth Amendment; many individuals argue the law as cruel and unusual punishment. In California, the “Three Strikes Law” gives prosecutors the authority to recommend a sentence from 25 years to life, depending upon an individual’s criminal history and the category of offenses for which that defendant has been found guilty. Specifically, Ewing’s case is a bit interesting in that the criminal offense that allowed for Mr. Ewing to be sentenced under the “Three Strikes Law” was a non-violent criminal offense, but because of Mr. Ewing’s exhaustive, criminal background that included multiple, prior violent offenses, the Supreme Court upheld the state’s decision.

Moreover, one of the major issues concerning the “Three Strikes Law” is that the lengthy sentences have introduced an entirely new set of circumstances for criminal justice professionals. One of the major concerns with the “Three Strikes Law” is that many defendants, as in the case with Gary Ewing, were convicted for non-violent offenses. The argument against the “Three Strikes Law” or any other statute that carries a more significant sentence is that certain criteria must be met in order for that sentence to be imposed under the “Three Strikes Law”. Official have to decipher between defendants who have committed violent offenses and defendants who have a lengthy criminal record. Which type of individual qualifies for the “Three Strikes Law” minimum and maximum sentence? I would argue that governments that have created and implemented the “Three Strikes Law” into their systems implemented these statutes and policies in an effort to deter violent, criminal behavior and to punish those who continue to engage in violent, criminal activity. Many individuals that have been sentenced under the “Three Strikes Law” have endured prison sentences that range from twenty-five...