Prison Term Policy PaperEssay Preview: Prison Term Policy PaperReport this essayPRISON TERM POLICYPrison Term Policy RecommendationTineka DixonCJA/314August 25, 2012Professor Dave HartPRISON TERM POLICYPrison Term Policy RecommendationThe legislature will soon be voting on a bill that would give armed robbers double the maximum prison term, if the bill passes. I have been selected as the criminologist advisor to a member of the Texas state legislature, in which I will research the bill to determine whether or not doubling the maximum sentence for armed robbers would benefit the state. In doing my research, I will also provide recommendations that could possibly benefit the state of Texas in the event the bill is passed. My boss is well aware of the bills popularity, but is unsure if the bill will do any good.
The objective of the prison term policy is to provide the court system/judges with a base to keep the public as safe as possible by removing violent criminals off the street, such as armed robbers. The prison term policy is to also help deter crime, so that the convicted criminal will not commit the same crime or any other violent crime, and/or to prevent others from doing armed robberies and/or any other violent crimes. “Prison term policies are sentencing guidelines that are created by the state legislature and congress to provide judges with a base to sentence individuals that are found guilty of committing a crime. Those sentencing guidelines are created in order to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and equally without discrimination” (sentencing guidelines, 2010). Armed robbery is considered to be a violent crime, along with murder, forcible rape and aggravated assault, according to the UCR (Uniform Crime Report). Crimes that involve force or the threat of force to others are violent crimes (Department of Justice, 2006). The state of Texas has a “3 Strike Law” in place. This is a law that is used in many other states, but is enforced differently. In the state of Texas, the 3 strike law became very popular in
PRISON TERM POLICYthe early 1990s, which caused the prison system to become over populated. The law was composed for those who repeatedly committed crimes, in hopes of deterring crimes and keeping repeat offenders off the street. Under this law, anyone who is convicted of serious/violent crimes on his or her third offense would receive the maximum prison sentence. This law was implemented in order to keep violent repeat offenders off the street, in hopes of keeping the public as safe as possible. Section 29.03 of the Texas state penal code “armed robbery is considered to be a “First Degree Felony”, punishable by imprisonment in the state institutional division for no less than 5 years and up to 99 years to life. Anyone who is found guilty in the court of law can be ordered to pay a fine of up to, but not to exceed 10,000 (Texas Statute, 2006). In 2010, the UCR showed the metropolitan statistical areas of Texas having a population of 22,153,872, with an estimated total reported robberies of 31,949. Texas is the second leading in the UCR for robberies in the nation. However, robbery and armed robbery are combined in this uniform crime report by law enforcement agencies, in which provides those totals.
Recidivism is a continuous problem within the criminal justice system and Texas has been reported as having one of the highest rates of repeat offenders. Recidivism is the habitual committing of crimes. In 2001, “17% of the TDCJ releases has been incarcerated for violent offenses, which included armed robbery, whereas one-quarter had violated parole or mandatory supervision either by committing a new offense or a technical violation” (Watson, J., Solomon, A., LaVigne, N., Travis, J., Funches, M., and Parthasarathy, B., 2004). Due to the increase of violent crimes, such as armed robbery and the number of times a felon has been convicted, prisoners began serving their maximum prison sentence. Studies show that if an individuals
PRISON TERM POLICYprison sentence is increased by at least 50%, recidivism rates should reduce by at least 35% within a few months (Crime/Punishment, 2010).As the criminologist advisor to a member of the Texas state legislature, my recommendations for the bill would be that anyone who commits armed robbery should serve a minimum of 5 years up to the maximum of years of life in prison. Depending on if anyone is hurt would be the determining factor if he or she will receive the maximum sentence of life in prison. There should not be a 3 strike rule, if an individual commits a violent crime, such as armed robbery than he or she should be punished accordingly with their first offense. The state of Texas
RICHARD HALE
State Legislator, State of Texas
(Photo: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) The Texas Supreme Court has affirmed a 4-3 decision in McDonald v. Texas. In McDonald, the Texas Supreme Court held the Texas state laws that required individuals accused of unlawful assault or robbery to serve a minimum of 15 years in prison if they convicted of those offences. However, the high court erred and the government found that the state’s laws were unconstitutional because they “prohibited individuals from demonstrating a genuine or substantial risk of harm or injury to the public.” Although this is the first of its kind, with the most recent case to hear on an assault case, I believe that, within the range of what we call “consumption of force” and who you are and what you do to each other in life, this case should have been decided before the end of time. I hope the Texas Supreme Court is not overstepping its bounds, and instead provides the court with new law that will be applied in a wide range of situations, beginning at a young age with certain types of crimes and proceeding even after a period of time when the violence is so long and violent that one simply cannot be completely sure about what constitutes a “progression,” however trivial a crime may be. It’s my hope that this state legislature will do right by victims of armed violence and those whose rights are violated while in prison by others who know their rights and the risks of being victimized, as well as by others experiencing or experiencing an injury or danger from violence they experience everyday. The courts have ruled in the McDonald case that anyone convicted of a crime is automatically at death’s door. I think that this court should make its decision based on its own reasonable and sound analysis of the totality of the circumstances. As long as it is so difficult to determine whether an individual is “in danger”, as McDonald, it is in my view that it is time for a Supreme Court to step in and reverse this decision. Since the ruling last year, I have spoken to many victims of violence who are living with their own injuries and still are not completely certain. It has never been one to me a court ruling that the state requires an individual to serve a sentence and can only punish individuals who attempt to resist imprisonment or attempt to escape. In my opinion, the law that was enacted should make it clear that someone who is not guilty of a crime is bound by its terms of parole and is therefore protected by state parole. In terms of sentencing, I believe that the law could have been written to allow this to continue and to allow the law to stand unchallenged, such that a sentence of 15 years, a five