Problem 1: The Three Strikes Law (and you're out) laws provide lengthy terms of any person convicted of three felony offenses, even if the third crime is relatively trivial. The law is applied differently in different state jurisdictions. Some require all three felony convictions to be for violent crimes in order for the mandatory sentence to be pronounced, whereas others provide enhanced sentencing for any third felony conviction as long as the first two felonies were deemed to be either violent or serious, or both. In two well-known California cases, defendants received life sentence for (a) stealing a slice of pizza and (b) stealing chocolate chip cookies. The pizza thief Jerry Dewayne Williams had his sentenced reduce to "only six years" for a slice of pizza. Is it fair to give someone a life sentence for a petty crime merely because she or he has prior convictions? Also, research what changes were made in California to the Three Strikes law in 2012 and address this in your posts.
Source:
YouTube Video: Three Strikes of Injustice | Op-Docs | The New York Times
Problem 2: Research indicates that most criminal cases never go to trial, but instead, are bargained out of the system. Bargains can be made for a plea of guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence, dropping charges, lowering the charge, or substituting a more socially acceptable charge for one with negative connotations. People who plead guilty generally get lighter sentences than those who go to trial. Critics of plea bargaining claim that it results in cynicism and disrespect for the judicial system. What are plea bargains? What are your thought on plea bargain after watching the videos. Is the victim deprived justice and should the victim has a say in the plea negotiation? What if the victim was one of you family members, would it change you idea of the fairness of plea negotiations?
Source:
YouTube Video: Brother takes aggravated assault plea deal